Nutty Catholic Priests Object to Oklahoma Immigration Law

In a Bartlesville, Ok., newspaper story, a group of Catholic Priests is reported to have pledged to defy Oklahoma'a new Immigration Law. Below is an example of the depth of thinking these Priests exhibit.

Catholic Priest Don Wolf of Duncan states:

We will defy this terrible law. How can you penalize people for helping other people?

That may well be the most asinine statement I've ever heard. It certainly ranks right up there at the top. Look, Donnie, if you're engaging in the practice of helping other people -- illegal foreigners at that -- to violate, not only our national laws, but our State laws as well, giving them aid and comfort in defying our laws, and defiantly violating our laws yourself in the very process, then you're liable to find out quick, fast, and in a hurry how we can and intend to penalize people for "helping other people." In this case, sir, how can we not penalize people for "helping" other people?, which would be tantamount to encouraging disorder and chaos and suicide. This is not the federal government you're dealing with here, which is in the habit of engaging in all of the above.

You liberals of all religious persuasions are hereby served notice. We in Oklahoma are no longer willing to tolerate the destruction of our values, our society; our very way of life, and we're certainly finished with assisting you in doing so. So if you're part of that effort, your best bet is to cease and desist immediately. Or move thyself to a more tolerant state. Those are my recommendations.

On a much more sane and reflective note, Representative Randy Terrill, the author of H.B. 1804, has said the following in reply to the charge that the law has caused "fear among the Hispanic population, leading thousands to flee the state.":

That was the intent of the bill.

By contrast with the above statement made by the priest, Representative Terrill states it about as clearly and concisely as it can be stated. Indeed, that was the intent of the Bill, which represents the intent of the People of Oklahoma. And I would add that the bill was intended also to put the fear of God into multicultist anarchist citizens of the State such as these Catholic Priests named above.

I stand behind the Oklahoma Congress on this issue 100%. The State of Oklahoma has done what it can do to give these immigrants incentive to leave this state immediately of their own volition, and to penalize their defiant enablers. Now it's up to the states to which they flee to do their parts in ending this liberal multicultist suicidal madness.

Read More

Moderate Muslims Found!

There's a group out there calling itself Muslims Against Sharia, claiming it has the prescription for what constitutes a moderate Muslim.

Now, as you might expect, I'm seeing all kinds of problems with this group and its claims. The basic question that comes to mind is whether this group subscribes to the Five Pillars of Islam. If it does, we have a problem. If it doesn't, we have a problem. In any event, we have a problem.

On the other hand, one might look on this group and/or its leader as the new 'prophet' through which Allah has chosen to abrogate his former revelations which came by way of what was supposed to be his final prophet and messenger, Mohammed, according to Islamic tradition. In other words, the group, in order to fulfill its vision of Islam (which I'm calling Non-Islam Islam) it would have to be successful in carrying out a major Islam-wide plot of deception, basically claiming that Allah never endorsed the violent nature of Islam, and certainly never meant to transmit this false endorsement through his final prophet, Mohammed. Many, many revisions to the Quran would have to be made, and so on and so forth. More problems than I can detail here.

We've been discussing this over at Brave New World Watch. So if anyone has anything to add to the discussion, that might be the place to go. But you're certainly welcome to post a comment here if you like.

Read More

One more post on Islam before I leave

(Update: See John Savage's analysis of the phrase "there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam," over at Brave New World Watch. Also, I've added the link to the AFB discussion on the topic where an additional comment has been added very pertinent to this discussion.)

What is a moderate Muslim? This question has been on my mind a lot lately, and in fact some time back I argued over at the AFB along the lines that the Christian equivalent of a moderate Muslim would be someone the Bible describes as lukewarm. In other words, what the two individuals of different faiths hold in common is that neither of them is that serious about his faith, and most likely not that knowledgable about it. This is what makes them, with regard to their particular faith and practice, moderate or lukewarm.

There's something else here too. It has been said over and over that "there are moderate "Muslims", but there is no moderate Islam." I think it could be said of Christianity, by contrast, that "there are radical "Christians", but no radical Christianity." The whole point being, of course, that there's something peculiar about the religion of Islam. It is inherently radical and extreme. That there are "moderate" Muslims does not in any way detract from that basic truth about the religion of Mohammed any more than the fact that certain violent individuals that exist claim to be Christians yet violate Christianity's first precepts.

But back to my original question. What to you constitutes a "moderate" Muslim? I've told you what a moderate Muslim is to me. Now I'd like to know what a moderate Muslim is to you. And I hope that Lawrence Auster will tackle this question of what constitutes a moderate Muslim either here or over at VFR in the near future.

Read More

One more Item of Note for November 1st, 2007

Today is of course the day that our new immigration law, H.B. 1804, officially goes into effect. Having had a look at my counter, it appears as though it was a few hours off all along. But I ain't real sure about that. It could be that the new law is not official until noon today. But irregardless, today is the day. And I'm sure it's going to get pretty interesting around here over the next several weeks. We'll see.

Read More

And on a lighter note

It's gettin' real close to playoff time here in Oklahoma. I've been to several H.S. football games this season, most of which were losses for the team I was supporting.

Tomorrow night is the final game of the regular season, and the final game for many teams in the state, including the local team I've been going to watch. However, on a more positive note, my hometown boys just beat the no. 1 ranked team in the State last Friday night in a defensive battle I wish I'da been there to watch, 13-7. My hometown squad is now ranked no. 2 in the State (up from the previous several weeks' ranking of no. 6) in their class. And they also enjoy an undefeated record to this point. Some of us has-beens take a lot of pride in the fact that our senior year at said H.S. was the first year our squad ever held a no. 1 ranking in the State, though by no means was it the last. Indeed, since that wonderful time, the team has won several State championships as well as several State runners-up distinctions. And it looks like the tradition lives on.

One never knows what's going to happen in the playoffs. I mean, my senior year we were district champions enjoying home field advantage in the first round of playoffs where we were handed our hats by a team which on paper certainly looked to be our inferior. But I'll certainly be paying close attention to progress of the hometown boys this post season. And I'll keep you updated. Go Blue!

Read More

If ever there was a word that did not belong in the Western vocabulary,...

Islamophobia is it

But Muslims are quick to throw the term out there anytime they deem any statement by any Westerner to be "offensive," or "stereotypical," or that in any way puts the prophet Mohammed and his religion in a bad light.

Case in point? I mentioned in a blog post a few days ago that Okla. State Congressman Rex Duncan, along with several of his colleagues, rejected a gift of the Muslim holy book from the Governor's council on ethnic relations, saying that most Oklahomans do not support an ideology that condones the killing of innocent women and children, which, as far as I'm concerned was something of an understatement, both with regard to most Oklahomans and as concerns the violent murderous nature inherent to the religion of Islam, but nonetheless. In this CAIR follow-up article on the story, the I-phobia word is used to describe the wretched, insensitive, and downright disrespectful conduct of Rep. Duncan and his colleagues (Note to Rep. Duncan and all, in an Islamic country you'd get your head cut off for making such statements).

From the CAIR story:

In rejecting the Qurans, Islam's revealed text, some lawmakers made stereotypical and offensive remarks that falsely linked the faith of Islam to violence. (emphasis mine)

Seriously y'all, when I read a statement like this: "...that falsely linked the faith of Islam to violence," I have to wonder what planet these people are on, or what planet they think you and I are on. Or, perhaps most importantly, what planet the people who believe this tripe are on.

I just got through watching Robert Spencer's excellent presentation in Brussels (hat tip John Savage), and one of the things he points out in his speech, quoting an expert on Islam (in an appearance on the Fox News show, Hannity and Colmes), is that you know, do you not, that there are Islamic groups out there who call themselves such things as "Islamic Jihad?" Duh!

So, look, all you criticism-of-Islam-ophobes, this whole mess is either your doing or the doing of those who share your faith. And as long as you continue to defend your prophet in all of his bloody excesses, and the word of Allah transmitted through him (which a devoted Muslim cannot not do, by the way), well, then, I'm afraid that your religion is going to have to be subject to this kind of scrutiny. Because you see, to an American like myself who intends to do all in his power to pass down to his children and grandchildren the founding principles of this country, allowing you to invade us and to progressively work toward subverting our form of government and imposing sharia law here in America unimpeded is, well, simply unacceptable, the alleged prophethood of Mohammed notwithstanding. End of story. And by the way, the term "Islamophobia", in the sense that you mean and incessantly apply it, I wear as a badge of honor!

Let us hope that Mr. Duncan and all of his colleagues who joined him in rejecting the Qurans will stand their ground and not cower under the pressure of CAIR and the (utterly illegitimate) "interfaith" community in this State and across the nation.

Read More

After you've read Islam 101, then what?

Well, I would recommend (though others may disagree) that you make use of the Lawrence Auster page on Islam, specifically The Search for Moderate Islam, Part I, Does it exist?

The entire series is posted at FrontPageMag and linked up over at the aforementioned Lawrence Auster on Islam page. But just to wet your appetite, I'll extract a passage from Part I of the series and post it here.

Mr. Auster writes:

The issue is momentous. If we subscribe to the promise of a moderate Islam, we will make its cultivation the central focus and goal in the war against militant Islam. If this moderate Islam in fact exists, our efforts may help Muslims transform their civilization for the better and relieve the world of the curse of Muslim extremism. But if moderate Islam does not exist, yet we delude ourselves into thinking that it exists, we would inevitably find ourselves trapped in a cultural equivalent of the Oslo "peace process," forever negotiating with and empowering our mortal enemies in the pathetic hope that they will turn out to be friends. Alternatively, if we understand that there is no such thing and can be no such thing as moderate Islam, that would obviously result in very different policies.

As I said before, this article (among many others) is provided for your convenience in the left sidebar of this blog in a handy-dandy easy to use format. Enjoy!

Read More

Updates to the On Islam section

Once again, for anyone not familiar with this section of the blog yet, this is located in the left sidebar of Webster's under the heading On Islam.

We've now added more articles to the Lawrence Auster page, as well as updating the introduction to the page. But the page itself is by no means finished as yet, neither with regard to the articles collected there, nor regarding the introduction, which, in its current state is just an expansion of a temporary intro until I can put together a better one (basically this means I need to become more familiar with the articles themselves, then I can write a proper introduction to the page). Your comments and suggestions on the page are welcome, and we've provided a comments button in the nav bar to accomodate them should you have any pertaining to that page particularly.

Also, I've added Mr. Tefft's FrontPage interview under the aforementioned section in the left sidebar. Y'all stay tuned and stay on the lookout for more additions, both to the section in question and to the Lawrence Auster page we've put together. Compiling all this material under one heading has really been fun and enlightening, and I have a few more ideas for improving on what we've done so far.

Again, your comments and suggestions are very welcome and will be well received, I assure you. Thanks to everyone again, particularly CTO, Lawrence Auster, and John Savage. Your assistance so far has been invaluable.

Read More

FrontPage interview with Bruce Tefft

More on the incompatibility of Islam with the West

I was over at VFR earlier scanning Auster's new articles when this one caught my attention. Certainly I was compelled to go over to FrontPage Mag. and read the entire interview with Mr. Tefft, so I did, and here's something intriguing that I found and thought I would share. At one point in the interview Tefft concludes his answer to an FP question in the following manner:

Tefft:

... But I'm an ex-spy, not a theologian -- from the spy-war aspect, the best thing the West can do in this war with Islam is to publicize and support morally and monetarily the apostates and ex-Muslims. They know the evils of Islam better than any outsider.

When I read this at first it sounded good and reasonable and made a lot of sense to me. Certainly a Muslim apostate/ex-Muslim who has renounced the religion of Islam would know much more than an outsider about the evils of, and inherent to Islam. And it cannot be bad, if Islam is so evil, for a Muslim to come to the light and renounce his faith in the religion of Mohammed, can it? Therefore we should publicize and fund these people, right? Then I came to my senses and recalled the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, or religious deception. In fact, earlier in the interview Tefft makes light of the practice of this principle in Islam when he states:

For a Muslim to pledge allegiance to a non-Muslim nation state would be either hypocritical or blasphemous -- something a true Muslim would not, or could not do. This is the case unless he was under a special jihadist dispensation from an Islamic cleric (as the 9/11 hijackers were) to infiltrate enemy territory and to act as the enemy does, in order to perform his mission. (italics added)

But further explanation of the principle, how it may be used and to what extent, may be found in Gregory M. Davis's excellent summation on the principles of Islam, Islam 101.

Mr. Davis writes:

Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one's neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement -- and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb -- impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch's own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception. (italics added)

So, what are we to conclude from this? Well, the conclusion I draw from it is that it would be virtually impossible to determine for sure whether you were dealing with a legitimate and sincere apostate/ex-Muslim given this principle of taqiyya in Islam to deceive the enemy in pursuit of victory over him. I mean, if the supposed apostate, working under the principle of taqiyya as described here is going to, in Tefft's words, "act as the enemy does," then he's going to dress like him, talk like him, groom himself like him, and most importantly rail against the evils and injustices of his true faith in accordance with his underlying purpose of accomplishing his mission, is he not?

So what is the answer to this dilemma? If we have no way of knowing who we're dealing with, friend or foe acting as friend, due to the deceitfulness authorized of his religion/former religion when we meet up with an "ex-Muslim"/"apostate," then what should be our approach to him? Is the answer not lying within the principles of separationism? Is it not to be skeptical of and distrust him to the point that we materially restrict his ability to harm us by his deceit, should he be operating under the principle of taqiyya or kitman -- the principle of deceiving his enemy in any way he can to accomplish his mission? Should we not thwart his mission before his mission ever gets underway?

Read More

CAIR offers its perspective on "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week"

CAIR, for anyone who doesn't know, is the acronym for the questionable Muslim lobby group "Council on American-Islamic Relations." In this CAIR article, College talk raises awareness of Islamophobia, the concerns raised by Lawrence Auster and some of the contributors involved in the VFR discussion I linked to in the preceding post are confirmed within the very title of the CAIR article.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week has served, on this campus at least, to raise awareness of the greater danger, "Islamophobia." The "awareness" has indeed shifted, as predicted at VFR, from so-called Islamo-Fascism to that of Islamophobia. In other words, in trying to raise the "awareness" of college students and faculty on college campuses across America to Muslim extremism, the organizers of this concerted event have inadvertently aided in the promotion and cause of Islam in this country. Muslims have, in predictable fashion, seized upon the opportunity handed to them on a silver "Islamo-Fascism" platter, to turn the event into a greater awareness of the dangers of Islamophobia.

How could an impressionable, liberal educated, undiscerning college kid come away from such a presentation so named with anything other than a confirmation of what he's most likely been led to believe all along anyhow?: That religious bigotry and extremism is as prevalent in Christianity, if not more so, as it ever was in Islam; that the problem is not Islam, but religious fanaticism?

And who are the religious fanatics which most threaten the rights of women and homosexuals (and Muslims) in this country. Certainly not Islamo-Fascists. No; they are people like myself and Lawrence Auster and countless other Christians and traditionalists who seek to raise the only kind of awareness relevant to the question of Islam in America - that it is an extreme religion by its very nature, and thus incompatible with Western culture, values, and society.

Read More

The real Islamo-Fascism Awareness

By the way, don't miss the ongoing discussion over at VFR on Islamo-Fascism Week, where, as I've intimated in the title to this post, the real and actual "Islamo-Fascism Awareness" is being hashed out. Namely, that the term Islamo-Fascism is a nutty liberal term to begin with, and the efforts of David Horowitz in raising this awareness on college campuses across the fruited plain is just as nutty and ill-conceived.

Here is pearl plucked from Lawrence Auster's initial entry:

Again, both the crazy left, and the somewhat less crazy Horowitz right, believe that Muslims are innocent victims, and must be rescued. The left wants to rescue them from America, Horowitz wants to rescue them from Islamo-fascism. But leftists and Horowitz agree that the principal object of our solicitude is Muslims. Horowitz is not seeking to protect us from Muslims, he's seeking to protect Muslims from Islamo-fascists. And that is insane.

I'm reminded here of Auster's excellent FrontPage article, The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy, which is included on Auster's page On Islam in the left sidebar of this blog for your future reference.

Read More

Muslim chairwoman offended by Okla. State Lawmaker

Marjenah Seirafi-Pour, a Muslim and the chairman of Gov. Brad Henry's "Ethnic American Advisory Council" is denouncing State Representative Rex Duncan's assessment of Islam that it is an extreme ideology.

Apparently Miss Seirafi-Pour takes exception to Representative Duncan's statement that Islam is an ideology which encourages the murder of innocent women and children. She says it is not an ideology, but a religion. Ok, so it's a religion. And what is a religion? See here.

Representative Duncan was joined by sixteen other Oklahoma lawmakers in rejecting a gift from the council of a copy of the Quran.

I only have a couple of questions, to whomever they may concern:

1. Where's the evidence showing that Islam is a "very peaceful, very inclusive religion," as Seirafi-Pour insists?

2. What's a Muslim doing chairing this council, Governor Henry???

In a related story in the McAlester News Capital, Wednesday edition, it is reported that members of the council are going to offer to meet with the representatives who refused to take the gifts. The idea being, of course, to re-educate these representatives on the "peaceful," "inclusive" nature of the religion of Mohammed. In other words, to acculturate them to Islam.

I'll be contacting Representative Duncan's office this morning, recommending that he read and pass around to his compatriots some of the articles I've collected on the subject here at Webster's. (I have now done this.)

More later.

Read More

Some people just have to be controlled

And over at Mike's personal blog, he laments that the city of Chicago is such a permissive city that it allows homosexual encounters to occur in public places where decent people retreat to pursue decent interests such as bird watching.

Now I ask, what kind of a moral ingrate is it that either engages in or defends the practice of sexual interludes in public and in broad daylight? Moreover, what kind of a society is it that permits that kind of behavior in a public place, in broad daylight?

Such activities simply have no place in a civilized society. Which makes me question at times how civilized our society really is.

Read More

Amending the Constitution - the right way

(Update: The commenter calling himself "statusquobuster" has provided us with the url to the site of a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention," or FOAVC. I've embedded the hyperlink to the site, as you can see, within the group's name itself. Y'all be sure and check it out, there's some interesting information I certainly wasn't aware of gathered at the site.)

My good friend, Mike Tams, has a nice post up over at the AFB concerning the Article V provisions for amending the U.S. Constitution, ummmm, constitutionally. Since this has been one of my favorite topics of discussion ever since I first discovered the distinctive provisions of Article V a few years ago, Mike's post really resonates with me...

As I said in my comments to the post, there are basically three methods of amending the constitution, only two of which are provided for in Article V. The other method - the liberal method - is illegitimate precisely because it is in the truest sense of the term "extra-constitutional." And by the way, my fellow AFBers know that when I hear the term "unconstitutional" bandied about, by liberals or conservatives, I usually just dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because first of all to many conservatives, anything "liberal" is considered unconstitutional, and vice versa. And second, since the people retain ultimate and final authority to themselves, it is they themselves who will ultimately determine what is or isn't "constitutional" either directly or indirectly.

Now, as a conservative and a traditionalist, I find it thoroughly non-traditionalist and non-conservative to alter the existing constitution by any means other than that provided for in the constitution itself. So when liberals use their preferred (extra-constitutional) method of amending the constitution -the federal courts- so effectively in establishing as dominant the destructive ideology of liberalism in America, I can think of but one proper, legitimate, and effective remedy: a constitutional amendment via the second provision of article V restricting the self-destructive influence of liberalism itself - a return to balanced constitutional government. Indeed, if this is not the purpose of having a written constitution, not to mention the second of the article V provisions itself, then I don't know what is.

And by the way, for anyone wondering what such an amendment would look like, or read like, I'll refer you to Lawrence Auster's skeletal amendment proposal from a couple of months back as I recall. This VFR article is permanently linked in the left sidebar of this blog under the heading Select VFR Articles.

Read More

Back to it at Webster's

My apologies to everyone for my recent unannounced absence. Time and circumstances didn't allow for a pre-departure announcement, nor for a firm return date. I'm back now, however, and I have several items I'll be attending to on the blog in the coming days. For one, the Lawrence Auster on Islam page will be revised and expanded to include several more articles under the heading of "Non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism." The addition of these articles to the page will require a proper introduction to them, of course. So there's yet another item I'll be working on, among other things. So I guess I better get started.

Read More

Oklahoma cotton farmers don't cotton to Oklahoma law

Oklahoma cotton farmer, Rann Williams, is quoted in a Daily Oklahoman story from Sunday, Oct. 21 as saying if his illegal Mexican employees are shipped back to Mexico, he may as well go with them:

"Without our Hispanic workers, our economy here would collapse,” said Williams, vice president of the Humphreys Co-op board of directors. "If they were all shipped back to Mexico, I might as well go with them. We would have no cotton crop.

Who wants to wager that if they are shipped back Williams'll figure something out? As they say, "necessity is the mother of invention." You'd think a successful business owner/Co-op VP would understand that basic truth.

The problem, Mr. Williams, is that you're not seeing the big picture, so consumed with self as you are. But the people of Oklahoma have spoken through their legislature, so I'd suggest you get used to it.

Read More

Doing Auster Justice

I got in a big hurry to get the Lawrence Auster on Islam page up and running, neglecting to attend to the aesthetic details. You're invited to go over and check the page out now as it has undergone vast improvements which do Mr. Auster's writings on Islam the kind of justice I think they deserve.

Keep in mind that the page is still not finished. We have more links to add, and the intro (if you want to call it that) in the left column of the page was hastily done in an effort to establish margins in the column. In short I just needed to put something up in that column to look at and make the proper adjustments to.

But y'all go over and check it out. I'll probably make the final adjustments late tonight or in the morning. Thanks to everyone for their assistance in putting this page together, you know who you are.

Read More

Islamic Scholars on Islam

Under the new On Islam section in the left sidebar of this blog, I have posted a link to a page we created from a collection of Lawrence Auster's writings on Islam. In one of the VFR entries listed on this page, Sayyid Qutb on the meaning and purpose of Jihad (under the heading VFR Articles on the page), Auster shares with us the thoughts of Sayyid Qutb, who Andrew Bostom believes may be "the most important Sunni Islamic scholar of the twentieth century."

Auster writes:

It’s also interesting how much stress Qutb lays on the idea that war is not waged to force people to become Muslims, but rather to bring them under Islamic rule and thereby to free them to choose Islam freely. He seems to be saying that people are only truly free to choose Islam if they are under an Islamic ruler.

In the below excerpt Qutb shows how the Koranic command not to initiate hostilities with non-Muslims only applied during an earlier stage in the development of Islam. Step by step he shows how the command to wage jihad keeps expanding until it becomes a mandate to wage war against all non-Muslims in the world.

"He seems to be saying that people are only truly free to choose Islam if they are under an Islamic ruler."

So, under a non-Islamic ruler, or rule, according to Qutb, Terry Morris is not truly free to freely choose Islam over Christianity. Only under an Islamic ruler or rule, can Terry Morris be set free to freely choose Islam. Islamic war against me and against my religion (a religion I could not have chosen freely) then is actually war in my behalf and for my freedom; for my freedom from the oppressive influence of Christianity, to choose freely the religion of Mohammed. Under Islamic rule I would naturally choose Islam over Christianity, the latter being such an oppressive and delusional influence on my mind that I simply cannot know the truth of Islam. Only under Islamic rule can my mind be freed and my heart released to understand this truth. And that means war.

So to be "free" to choose Islam, I must be "freed" from all influences not Islamic. Which as I said means war, the goal of which is Islamic conquest, the result of which is all things Islam. To Islamists this is "freedom."

The full VFR entry may be read here.

Read More

Fix the errors or fix THE ERROR?

In the recent VFR thread, Judge stops government from enforcing immigration law, the commenter Buddy writes:

"Did you know that the Social Security database was riddled with errors? A program that's been in existence for over 70 years. Seventy years, and they still haven't figured out how to keep the information free of an egregious number of errors. The same federal program that consumes 25 percent of the federal budget. The Feds can't even be bothered to keep the information straight. Unbelievable.

Although it is possible that these "civil rights and labor groups" (media code words for liberal organizations) are exaggerating the extent of the problem in their effort to kill enforcement of immigration laws. It's interesting that their focus is to stop enforcement based on errors in the SS database, rather than to fix the errors in the database."

May I suggest that we begin working toward fixing the underlying error that has ever and always shall plague the Social Security system and its database, namely entrusting the federal government with the responsibility of collecting and redistributing "social security" payments. It's not a problem with the database fundamentally. And we see here a very good example of how the federal social securty system has an inherent flaw making it a very useful tool for the flouting of our laws, and for the advancement of the liberal cause.

Read More

Sephardic Jews or Arab-American Muslims?

I wrote about this specific revelation back on September 28th, here. But now I've discovered that Paul Sperry, author of Infiltration, How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington, has also documented such revelations in a collection of articles over at FrontPage Magazine. In this particular article, Jews need not apply to Fight Terrorism, Mr. Sperry reveals a few of the coincidences involved with why Arab-American Muslims were chosen for sensitive FBI translator positions over Jewish applicants post 911:

A chronic shortage of Arabic-speaking translators had resulted in an accumulation of thousands of hours of untranslated audiotapes and written material stored in FBI lockers.

The FBI's New York field office, at least, knew such delays were no longer acceptable after the 9-11 attack. The bureau's translators were the key to preventing another homeland strike, but they had to convert Arabic chatter to English faster. That meant hiring a lot more translators as quickly as possible.

So in October 2001, while rescue workers were still pulling remains from Ground Zero, two agents from the FBI's offices located nearby reached out to local Arabic-speaking Jews to do just that. Agents Carol Motyka and Marsha Parrish met with an official at the Sephardic Bikur Holim, a Jewish social-services agency in Brooklyn.

At the meeting, Yola Haber, who heads the agency's employment division, says she agreed to help recruit Arabic-speaking Jews for the bureau. Most of them applied on-line for the translator jobs. All told, she says she referred some 90 applicants, possibly more, to the FBI. They included retired linguists who had experience working for Israeli radio in Arabic and for the Israeli army.

Remarkably, not one of them was hired.

"We sent them a lot of people, and nobody made it to the finish line," complained Sephardic Bikur Holim director Doug Balin. "Not one person was found eligible for these jobs, which is outrageous."

Instead, the FBI hired dozens of Arab-American Muslims as translators.

The double standard doesn't sit well with Jewish leaders, who note that Muslim translators hired by the Pentagon to assist in al-Qaida interrogations are under investigation for espionage. And there have been reports of loyalty issues involving Muslim translators at the FBI.

So, from the beginning, it was a question of loyalty on the part of the Sephardic Jews who applied for these positions at the FBI. So much so that not a single one of them was hired. Apparently the issue of loyalty with regard to the Muslim applicants ultimately hired never came up until disloyal Arab-American Muslim translators had already been in these positions long enough to have successfully conducted espionage operations against the United States.

Unbelievable.

Read More

Auster on Islam

There won't be any more posts today at Webster's. But there's plenty for you to read up on in the absence of new entries. Under the new "On Islam" section in the left sidebar I have posted a permanent link to a page we created from Lawrence Auster's writings on Islam. The page includes Auster's writings on the subject at FrontPage, NewsMax, and at VFR. The page itself will undergo further improvements, but for the time being it is sufficient to its purpose.

Y'all be good.

Read More

Introducing: "On Islam"

That's the title of Webster's newest section in the left sidebar directly beneath the section titled "Select VFR Articles." I have a lot of reading to do before I add any new links to that section. But if any of you have any suggestions for items you think belong there, please let me know. Thanks.

Read More

Hirsi Ali on the Islamic threat to the West

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch has pointed me in the direction of his October 15th entry on Hirsi Ali's contention that the trouble with is Islam is really the trouble with the West.

Hirsi Ali:

"The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.

Here again, John provides us with the necessary links in his entry. Thanks to John for the heads up.

Read More

Converting others to the Principles of Separationism

Over at VFR I ask this question: "Since we can't control what Muslims do or decide to do, but we can control what we do or decide to do, I wonder if there's a strategy available to us which would help us to win more converts to the principles of separationism? It seems like we're trying to get people to believe what they don't want to believe about Islam, namely that it is wholly incompatible with Western civilization. Is there a way to make them understand what they apparently don't want to understand about Islam?" And LA answers me.

In short, there are no short cuts. We're just going to have to work harder.

Read More

Breaking down the "religion of peace."

Over at the AFB, Mike Tams has put up this entry providing the appropriate links to the articles of which he speaks where we may find such statements as this:

"The Quran's commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet's career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a "religion of peace.""

And this:

"Because Muhammad is himself the measuring stick of morality, his actions are not judged according to an independent moral standard but rather establish what the standard for Muslims properly is." (emphasis mine)

And this:

"There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms -- an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. -- whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah."

And finally a couple of concluding paragraphs:

"It is paramount to note, however, that, even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism would simply mean a change in Islam’s tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasized that Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while Islam proper remains permanently hostile."

"It must be emphasized that all of the analysis provided here derives from the Islamic sources themselves and is not the product of critical Western scholarship. (Indeed, most modern Western scholarship of Islam is hardly “critical” in any meaningful sense.) It is Islam’s self-interpretation that necessitates and glorifies violence, not any foreign interpretation of it."

Go check out the article which concludes with a list of FAQs including the following:

a. What about the Crusades?

b. If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

c. What about the violent passages of the Bible?

And etc...

Read More

VA and LA hash things out

Do not miss this discussion ongoing in the comments section of VA's fine entry on secession which I linked to the other day. The discussion has gotten very interesting with Auster and Vanishing American hashing things out between themselves.

Without political union (meaning the United States as it currently exists) can the American people maintain their distinctive existence and continue to act on the world stage? That's a question being broached in this discussion. It seems like the question comes down to this: Is it possible for the United States to reorganize itself in such a fashion so as to preserve its distinct nationhood while maintaining its ability to operate on the world stage? Or is the United States of America resigned to maintaining its current political organization in order to continue being a major player on that stage?

With regard to my own contribution to the discussion (which pales in comparison), I can only say that it was not my intent to argue for a "constitutional," or a "lawful" right to secede from the union. The idea of constitutionality/lawful right was raised in the original story where the terms unconstitutional and unlawful were used as I recall. In short I agree with Mr. Auster that secession/rebellion is a "natural" right, not a constitutional right. But I should have made that explicit.

End of intitial post.

Read More

Coming soon to a city or town near you

Recently Lawrence Auster wrote to me the following: "To think of people doing this in workplace restrooms or college dorm restrooms...is simply appalling." "No honest person can say that such customs are conformable with America and with any Western society."

Mr. Auster was of course speaking of Muslims and their foot washing customs. But his words apply just as well to the Folsom Street Degenerates.

I would say that no honest person can say that such things belong in the streets and public places of America. It's bad enough that people act like this in the privacy of their own homes. It's worse that our society tolerates this kind of behavior on open display in our public markets. But that's the price of leftist multicultist non-discriminationism.

And please, don't come in here trying to argue that "this is San Francisco and blah, blah, blah." Look, the nearest town to me with any population at all (about 20,000 people) recently held its first annual "gay pride" get-together at the city park. In the same town the Lowes store has a "Men's/unisex" bathroom, and etc. Fifteen years ago I was saying that this was going to happen if we didn't work up the courage and determination to stop it. And virtually everyone I engaged on the problem resisted it saying that rural America was isolated from that influence; from its influence on the public schools and so on and so forth.

What have you unbelievers to say now? Continuing on pace, what do you think your town will be tolerating fifteen years from today? Can you honestly look yourselves in the eye and say that your local homosexual contingent is going to be satified with holding "orderly" gay pride festivals in such relatively obscure places such as your local public parks? Bull! If that's what you believe about homosexuality; that there's any "moderation" inherent to the lifestyle, then I would have to say that you're willingly ignorant at best. They won't be satisfied until they're marching down your streets and neighborhoods putting on public display their deviant abjectly immoral behaviorisms. Open your eyes!

(Warnings are provided before you get to the actual images.)

End of initial post.

Read More

Auster asks "the biggie"

This is a continuation of Friday's blog post wherein I ask "Who would be your second choice for President?"

Lawrence Auster has replied in a comment to the entry asking a question of his own, which seems to me to get right to the heart of the matter of whether a traditionalist conservative can ultimately support a 'top tier' GOP candidate in the '08 election...

LA writes:

What if one of the top tier candidates came out with a decent immigration policy—not everything we want, but decent? I define that as opposing amnesty absolutely, stopping illegal immigration, and no increase in legal immigration, or maybe even a reduction in legal immigration. Would you consider supporting such a candidate, even if he was not on board with you on other issues you cared about?

LA continues:

If I saw a candidate who was not on board on the marriage amendment and other social conservative issues , but took a significant position on immigration, I would certainly consider supporting him.

TM replies:

On the question of whether I'd consider supporting a top tier candidate who took a decent position on immigration (by your definition), I'd have to answer that in the affirmative. In fact, such a candidate taking such a position on immigration, as long as he wasn't too far out there on other important issues would become very attractive to me. But I'd have to really weigh his position against his record as well as his character and integrity before I committed to supporting him.

Do you know of anyone who fits this bill, that you believe would stick to this policy once elected?

Vanishing American weighs in:

Terry, I think you've raised the question that occurs to me: would any of the top tier candidates be likely to actually honor a promise to control our borders, reject amnesty, etc.? ... I think all the top tier candidates have shown themselves willing to pander to Hispanics, or at the very least, to work both sides of the street as necessary to win votes.
Put simply, I don't trust them, based on their past records.

TM replies:

VA, your comments concerning the willingness of the top tier candidates to play both ends against the middle in order to win votes brings to mind Katie's Dad's recent blog entry where he shows decidedly that the GOP doesn't need the Hispanic vote, and in fact pandering to it is actually losing the GOP precious and vital support from its base, in spite of what Linda Chavez and the AMF says.

TM continues:

This seems like one of those "could I, would I, should I" questions. Could I support a top tier candidate taking up the Auster prescription for immigration policy? Would I support him? Should I support such a candidate? And it all boils down to the same answer with me; and this is where I agree with the Dobsonian principled approach...

As Dobson said in his answer to Sean Hannity's question concerning Rudy Giuliani's claim that he'll appoint constructionist judges as president, why didn't he do it when he had the opportunity to appoint conservative judges in New York? With regard to the other top tier candidates, Romney and Thompson, it's also a matter of character and integrity; a matter of what their political record indicates they'll do as opposed to what they say they'll do.

Some will certainly argue that if the candidate in question takes the Auster position on immigration, then at least we'll have something to hold him to irregardless of whether he intends to keep the promise or not. I think there's some merit to that argument, particularly as it relates to the candidate's first term in office should he be elected. But if any of you would argue strongly from that position in support of one of the top tier candidates, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

John Savage writes:

I'm pretty much with VA. If one of the candidates made a credible promise, I could imagine changing my position, but I just don't see that happening. In particular, I think I'd have to see a convincing statement from Tancredo about why he turned around and started believing in the nominee, since he currently thinks all the top-tier guys are phonies. For instance, Tancredo has criticized Romney's positions on immigration as a classic example of his "conversion on the road to Des Moines".

I'd also add that a decent position on immigration for me would have to include some sort of recognition that allowing Muslim immigration is tantamount to importing the jihad into America. I think the chances of us getting that from one of the top candidates is really low.

Read More

Who would be your second choice ... for President?

(Note: The discussion initiated by Mr. Auster's question on supporting a top tier candidate has been moved here.)

Just on a quick roundup of the relatively few blogs that I frequent, I note that all of them express a preference, or a pretty solid number one candidate for the presidency. While none of them, including this blog, seem to have a solid number two...

I'll start the roundup over at the AFB. Fellow AFBer Mike Tams seems to be leaning toward Mitt Romney as his second choice. He would probably prefer someone like Duncan Hunter to Romney, but Romney seems to appeal to Mike very much. I don't think Mike has totally committed himself to Romney as yet, but this seems to be the direction in which he is leaning.

Over at VFR, Lawrence Auster has repeatedly endorsed Tom Tancredo. In this recent VFR entry Auster mentions both Fred and Romney as preferable to Giuliani. But he doesn't tell us which of the two (Fred or Romney) he would prefer.

Meanwhile, VA has said many good things about Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. These two seem to be VA's top two candidates, but it's still a bit unclear in what order she would put them. I tend to think, from what I read at VA's, that she would place them in the order that I've placed them in the first sentence of this paragraph.

The Maritime Sentry strongly endorses the candidacy of Mike Huckabee. But I don't recall reading there an endorsement of a second choice or preference.

I'm not at all sure about Wise Man's Heart. I don't know whether Hermes has broached this topic or not. But I'll go check it out. (Hat tip to John Savage for reminding me of this post over at WMH, where Hermes expresses his like of Tancredo and Paul)

John Savage at Brave New World Watch is a strong supporter of Tom Tancredo. Don't miss his lengthy roundup of Tancredo related blog posts in his right sidebar. But like the rest of us, John has yet to name a second preference from the list of candidates.

And to complete the roundup, here at Webster's I've endorsed Tancredo on a number of occasions as my first choice. I've never said, however, who my second choice would be.

I don't think I can nail down a second choice just yet. I need to do a lot more research and reflection on the remaining candidates. I think Ron Paul is interesting, but at this point I don't think I could name him a second choice. Giuliani isn't even on my radar as someone I could ever cast a sacred vote for. And Fred doesn't rate much higher with me at this point than Giuliani. I don't think Fred can make up any ground with me either, but we'll see.

Basically I'm left to decide between Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul as secondary choices to Tom Tancredo. And like I said, I'm just going to have to commit to doing a lot more research on all three of these candidates.

In any event, I can say this. If Giuliani were to get the Republican nomination (which seems to be the general consensus at this point) I could not vote for the man. I would be forced to vote third party, or to write in a candidate. This is a scenario where someone like Ron Paul might actually get my vote. But if I were forced to write in a candidate, Tancredo not being on the ballot, then I would write in the name Tom Tancredo, and let the chips fall where they may.

Read More

In case you missed it

Be sure to check out Wednesday's VFR entry, They're coming to take our country and we must stop them. Particularly Leonard K.'s comments, followed by LA's reply, both added to the entry sometime after its intial posting.

As Auster concludes in his reply to Leonard's thoughts:

Muslims topple the World Trade Center, then get the Empire State Building lit up in their honor. This epitomizes America’s response to 9/11.

Sad but true.

Read More