« Flaming Lips, Maybe. Intermitently Smoldering Lips, Certainly. | Main | The Thing Is, When You Have Children You Find Yourself Having To Say Things You Never Thought You'd Have To Say »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Even though Freud was a fraud, I think it's OK to use the term "Freudian slip":
[Newt] continues his market positioning as an idea mean


On the other hand, in this post, you wrote the single most insightful and accurate line I've seen you write since Conrad first sent me on my way to your blog:

we're in a battle with an ideology as twisted and vile as Communism, though without a nation to act as a center of gravity


Just one question, though (well, two, but who's counting?). The ideology you're talking about is Islam, right? Not "Islamism" (a term made up by liberals and not used by Moslems themselves), not "Islamofascism" (more of the same but worse), and not allegedly "'radical' Islam" (it's radical by our civilized standards but mainstream belief & practice for them), right?

The enemy is politicized Islamic fndamentalism. I have freinds who are Moslems, and there is nothing vile about their religious belief because they are tolerant of the beliefs of others. Islamic fundamentalism is a belief that people can be brought to God by threats and violence, and that no action is too horrible if it is taken in God's name.

I don't object to "Islamofacism" or "Islamism" or any other descriptor that attempts to precisely identify what it is we're fighting. I go to "Islamism" because it's shorter and easier to type.

That artillery could, in the 24 hours it takes to fuel one of North Korea's primitive SCUD-style missiles, kill a million South Koreans.

And who, having spent time in South Korea, enduring the pushing, shoving and qeue jumping, the xenophopia and racism, the drunkeness, the brawls, the stink, and the pants-splitting kimchi farts, hasn't fantasized about that prospect?

And, if the North is going to kill a million South Koreans, can they start with the 250 savages who, last month, turned boarding a last KAL flight out of Seoul into a scene out from a World Wrestling Association pay-per-view event?

Terminology is more important than we think.

The term "Islamism" was created by Westerners who falsely believe that "everyone is the same" and that "we all want the same things" in order for them deal with the fact that we are not all the same and that everyone does not want the same things. There was no way to explain Islamic terrorism while embracing their universalist dogma. Only by creating a false dichotomy could they stay happy with their delusions. "Oh, it's not Islam that makes people violent; it's Islamism." Furthermore, it's not a term that Moslems generally use themselves, and on those rare occasions when they do, they do not distinguish it from Islam.

"Islamofascism" is even worse. There were people who called themselves fascists (maybe there still are), but no one calls himself an "Islamofascist." Islam is a totalitarian, extremist religion, and so seems fascistic from our civilized point of view. Again, the basic problem is that using a term like this lulls people into thinking that there's a "good" Islam versus a "bad" Islam, when in fact, there's just Islam.

If you want to read something bloodthirsty, brutal, violent, and vicious, pick up the Koran! While the parts that were written earlier, when Mohammed was weak, are more conciliatory in nature, the later parts are savage. Moslem maltreatment of infidels started with Mohammed and continue to the present.

As for your Moslem friends, I have no doubt that they are kind, good people. However, if they are truly your friends, then they are not Moslems. Suras 5:51 and 3:118 explicitly forbid Moslems from having infidel friends.

What you described as Islamic fundamentalism is mainstream Islamic teaching (Suras 8:12, 9:5, 47:4, to say nothing of taqiyya, lying for the sake of Islam). The problem is not Islamism, Islamofascism, or Islamic fundamentalism, politicized or otherwise: the problem is Islam.

Actually, if you want to read something bloodthirsty, read the Old Testament. Mass slaughter, ethnic cleansing, hideous crimes commited in the name of God...it's got it all.

I've read some of the Koran, and it is bloodthirsty. And a fundamental difference between the life of Muhammad and the life of Christ is that Christ died on the cross while Muhammad raised an army and went out to conquer lands for God. That is no small difference, close to the core of each religion as it may be.

That said, Christianity pre-Enlightenment was a pretty brutal religion. The socio-political difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has never had an enlightenment. Church and state never separated; religion never became a matter of conscience.

My Moslem friends are just as Moslem, though they associate with non-Moslems, as Christians are who don't demand what the Bible literally says: Silence from women in church, death to those who fail to keep the sabbath, and other teachings that are all over the Bible, though they'vebeen abandoned in most Christian churches as archaic. (Try the old "the Bible told me to kill my wife after she cheated on me" defense in court and see how far it gets you.) They are enlightened as most modern Christians are enlightened: We believe in our own faith even as we respect the faith of others. Religion is of no value unless it is a matter of conscience, and freedom of conscience does not exist without tolerance.

So I guess I have to cop to being one of those people who use "Islamist," though I would say for all the right reasons. While I don't beleive that we're all the same and all want the same things, I also reject the idea that Islam is an inherently violent religion. That is the "twisted" part of Islamism that makes the ideology so vile.

You are right about a fundamental difference between Jesus and Mahomet. Look at Jesus' peaceful ministry and ultimate sacrifice versus Mahomet's seventy-eight military conquests. Look at Jesus' piety versus Mahomet's rapaciousness. The list goes on and on. (Full disclosure: I'm not religious, but was raised Christian, and was once anti-theistic.)

More to the point, I don't believe that there's any basis whatsoever for drawing a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. You might not think that's what you did, but your "compare-n-contrast" is tantamount to it. The more you learn about Islam, the more unlike Christianity you see it is (though it has also been called a Christian heresy, which is a fascinating analysis).

You are also absolutely right about the Enlightenment and the Reformation. However, it's not just that Islam has not had either; it's that Islam can never have either. The reason is that the Koran is the literal word of Allah and is unchangeable. It is as it is, and there is no leeway for taking only the parts you like and leaving the rest behind.

All groups have a spectrum of members, and your friends appear to be moderate. It may be that they are what some people call "bad Moslems," i.e., those who have abandoned the less-civilized aspects of Islam. However, they are no longer true Moslems, because the immutable Koran does not allow believers to pick and chose. It's all or nothing, and if they don't accept it all, they're apostates and deserve to die (suras 3:19, 4:89, and various hadiths, not to mention the countless executions of apostates by Moslems). It's also possible that they are employing taqiyya--deception--to lull the infidels into complacency, to strengthen their position.

My point here is that all Moslems are the enemies of the West and Christianity. It doesn't matter if some of them are peaceful and enlightened beings who warmly embrace non-Moslems as brethren, because they are all part of the group who have rapidly transformed (sadly, with our complicity) our civilization. They are part of an organization that poses an existential threat to our culture and civilization, and have no place in the West. (I would allow for the temporary presence of diplomatic and trade missions, but the permanent population of Muslim immigrants should be zero.)

Um, wow, Squid.

I guess, not being one who believes in purging people based on their religion -- that is to say, being one who is commited to the basics of American social and political belief -- I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Most forcefully, as a matter of fact.

I respect your right to disagree with me, and it is very good to know that there are at least a few people left who can disagree without being disagreeable (yes, I'm including you).

I agree with you about the importance of American social and political beliefs. However, what you appear to fail to appreciate is that if Moslems get into positions of power, they will purge infidels--based on their religion. We offer the fundamental rights of our civilization to them, but they never, ever reciprocate in kind. Demanding "consideration" and "respect," they have yet to offer either to non-Muslims under their jurisdiction. It's a one-way street with Moslems, and every concession and accomodation we make to them is seen as a sign of weakness, emboldening them to go further.

I'll go even further than I have already written, and say that believing Moslems who are naturalized US citizens should be stripped of their citizenship, not least because they lied when they took their oaths. The oath says that you will respect US laws and the Constitution as the highest authority, but the Koran forbids any law of man to contravene Islamic law. Moslems in Europe are already demanding that they be allowed to adjudicate their problems by sharia instead of the host countries' laws. There numbers are still too small here, but once they reach a critical mass, they will make the same demands in the US.

I will also say that anyone who preaches Islam should be prosecuted under our anti-sedition laws, because the goal of Islam is to convert the world. What they want is not in concord with our system, and they will use any means necessary to achieve their goals.

It goes without saying that Moslems should be barred from serving in the US military. Already numerous Moslems have been caught trying to share sensitive information with Islamic states. Furthermore, the only recent case of fragging involved one SGT Hassan Akbar, a black American convert who killed 2 and wounded 14 Soldiers in Iraq on March 23, 2003.

Until the mid-20th century, we in the West understood that Islam was incompatible with our civilization. We knew that Moslems were our enemies, not because we declared them as such, but because they did. Now, due to the spread of leftism/liberalism, we can no longer judge people, can no longer assess the value of one system over another, no longer recognize that differences exist between different peoples and cultures. We have suicidally embraced multiculturalism and withdrawn our own legitimacy as a people, and various minorities, including Moslems, have stepped into the vacuum. Please learn something about Moslem history. Wherever they gain power--which they do primarily through war--they subjugate and slaughter the infidel.

This is why I discriminate based on religion--a totalitarian, absolutist religion that requires its violent spread.

Well, Squidly, you have managed to do something I had previously thought impossible. Make Ann Coulter look moderate.

It's hav-measures like Squidley's zat allow zes vile cancer to propogate amongst us. Vhere are ze yellow crescents sown to der clothing? Vhere are ze marriage bans? Vhere are ze camps?

It's not like vee havn't shown you ze way.


How about that? And I have you to thank, Conrad, for starting my metamorphosis from brainwashed liberalism to traditionalism!

Incidentally, Ann Coulter isn't much of a conservative--but then again, she, like most mainstream "conservatives," is a right-liberal. Right-liberalism is the belief that society consists of a belief in universal human rights--but nothing beyond that. They believe that a country consists of ideas and ideas alone, not of people, culture, and even the land itself. Furthermore, right-liberals believe that everyone else believes in the same things.

What is traditionalism, then? Traditionalists believe in the rule of law, not social justice. We believe in individual rights, not group rights. We believe in the security of property, not redistribution of wealth. We believe in our common American identity based on our shared heritage, not in multiculturalism. We believe in the particularity--and value--of ourselves as a people and culture and nation, and the particularity of others as well.

Most fundamentally, we believe in the transcendent, which is the quality of a whole that exceeds the sum of its parts. An example is the idea of "man," as expressed in the phrase "all men are created equal." When we look around, we plenty of individuals, but we do not see this "man." However, this "man" is the essence of who we are. In contrast, liberalism denies the transcendant.

In response to Julius' scintillating rhetorical brilliance, I invoke Goodwin's Law: If you call someone a Nazi, you lose the debate. (Sadly, his comments demonstrate the general level of liberal discourse.)

Just for the record: point out one place where I advocate anything even remotely resembling violence towards Moslems.

Just to make it clear, I will clarify my position: Moslems belong in their countries and not in ours.

If we had no Moslems in our countries...

*we would have no terrorist attacks like 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7.
*we would not be required to abandon our Fourth Amendment rights every time we wanted to get on an airplane.
*we would not have gangs of Moslems raping Western women (criminally unreported in the mainstream media, but it's prevalent in Europe and Australia).
*we would not have gunmen murdering Israelis at El Al ticket counters (7.4.02).
*we would not have sections of major European cities where the police fear to tread.
*we would not have to arrest terrorists planning to decapitate our leaders.
*we would have far fewer attempts to destroy our public monuments, airports, and government buildings.
*we would not have Moslems running over students on college campuses (3.3.06).
*we would not have terrorists opening fire on tourists in order to punish them over Palestinians (2.24.97).
*we would not Moslems rioting over cartoons.
*we would not have Moslems demanding that crosses and images of pigs be removed from public spaces because they are "offensive."

In short, we would not be subject to the violence towards infidels that is inherent to Islam, and we would not have our civilization chipped away by their intolerant demands.


The person who left the Streicher comment is not a liberal, it was me being sarcastic (check the email address appended to the comment).

The point that I was making -- or attempting to make, anyway -- is that a number of the things you advocate, e.g., revoking citizenship, bans on military service, are straight out of the Nazi statute books. I don't think Goodwin's law applies when the target of the Nazi comparison is actually espousing policies put in place by the Nazis.

However, to be clear, I was not calling you a Nazi and no personal offense was intended. Rather, I was hoping that it would give you pause that some of the solutions you propose resemble those of a certain Austrian corporal?

Then there's the fact that nothing you suggest could be implemented without repealing much of the US Constitution. Personnally, I'm not prepared to throw aside the founding document of the world's most successful democracy in order to battle a rabble whose philosophy and economy are more 16th than 21st century.

If the US could defeat the Germans and the Japanese without repealing the Bill of Rights, it can certainly deal with this lot.

1. I should have known better than to think that anyone other than you, me, or Pursuit posts comments here. (Sorry, Tom!)

2. Julius Streicher was not a name ever uttered by Colonel Klink, so that's why I was unfamiliar with it. ;-)

3. Thank you for clarifying the Nazi bit; I was exasperated but not offended. Now I'm embarrassed at my ignorance, and surprised by yours. To be clear: my ignorance of WWII history (I know more about the war in the Pacific) and your ignorance of Constitutional law (though in all fairness, that's not your specialty, and certainly not mine).

I disagree that stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship is unconstitutional. The laws for doing so are already on the books. As I recall, it can be done when someone gives a false oath when becoming a citizen. The part that applies to Moslems is

I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

because their first and last allegiance is to Islam. There is no requirement for Christians, for example, to implement "Christian law" (whatever that may be)--remember what Jesus said about rendering unto Caesar? However, Islam is much more comprehensive, dictating not only spiritual matters but also almost all aspects of daily and legal life. Since the Koran must reign supreme, they cannot support those parts of the Constitution that disagree with the Koran, and therefore are bearing false witness when they take the oath of citizenship.

The same arguments can be applied to military service.

I would also like to point that the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act allows the government to deport immigrants, and even citizens, who engage in subversive activities, though this Act was significantly defanged in 1990 by the politically correct.

As important as the Consititution is, you, Conrad, of all people, should know that Justice Robert Jackson (who served as the chief prosecuter at Nuremberg) said that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. We are not obligated to interpret in such as way that would cause our civilization to falter or collapse--though we are free to, and in fact, many recent Supreme Court rulings are leading us towards self-destruction.

Finally, you're right: we could deal with the Islamic rabble if we chose to, but we don't. Instead, we are chosing to let them overrun us. They have made much more progress in Europe, where they have been present longer, and in greater percentages. Europe is a preview for us, if we don't reverse the self-destructive course we're on.

Thank you for pointing out my ignorance of Constitutional law. I was even more amazed than you to learn of it, having received an AmJur Award in that subject in Law School. But then, I did get it from that pinko, commie, moonbat Larry Tribe, so. . . .

Your arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, you cannot constitutionally, on the basis of their religion or the tenents thereof, proscribe Muslims from military service, revoke their citienship, or prevent them from prostelizing.

I am not going involve myself in a detailed rebuttal of your arguments to the contrary, anymore than I would engage in a detailed rebuttal of claims that the Earth is flat or that fairies live in my refrigerator. You are wrong. Faubulously, amazingly, egregiously, hysterically, wrong. If you asserted that analysis on a ConLaw exam, you'd fail. If you raised your argument before the Supreme Court, you'd lose, 9-0 (assuming you ever got there, which you wouldn't, because SCOTUS doesn't grant cert for the pupose of ridiculing an advocate, which is the only conceivable reason for entertaining such claims).

If the government can deny Muslim Americans, not only fundimental accouterments of citizenship but actual citizenship itself, on the basis of their belief in Islam, then the free exercize clause of the First Amendment means absolutely nothing.

If it can prevent them prostelizing their beliefs then free speech joins free exercize in the trash heap.

If it can do this en mass, without individual hearings and findings, then the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are unrecognizable.

And lets not forget Article 6, Sec. 3, which prohibits religious tests for any office or public trust.

The US Constitution prohibits the government from doing what you advocate. Period. End of story. You are, of course free to advocate your policy proposals, but to claim they are consistent with the constitution is . . . I'm hard pressed to come up with a word strong enough to capture the degree of wrong-headed absurdity of the argument.


I stand corrected on your knowledge of consitutional law. I apologize. Like you, I meant no offense; I always thought that you were a business lawyer. I had no idea you were this accomplished.

I suppose I was not clear on what basis I believe that naturalized Moslems could be stripped of their citizenship. Please allow me to clarify. (Codeine makes me fuzzy and verbose, and I've been taking a lot of it for my coughing. I'm off it now, so now I have no excuse.)

Yes, you are absolutely right that what I propose cannot be done on the basis of religion, and I knew that. However, at the very least, stripping citizenship can be done on the basis of political beliefs. Someone more clever than I--and (it should go without saying) far more knowledgeable about the law than I--could make those arguments without any reference to the individual's religion, even though the beliefs stem from the religion.

If I'm wrong on that count, then I will cede the point to you.

In any case, in today's political climate, it is highly unlikely that such arguments would even be made, much less approved. So, let's go back to my basic point: how to keep America secure from Islamic terrorism.

Let us assume that I am wrong, and that the problem is not Islam itself, but only "politicized Islamic fundamentalism." How are we to keep that aspect of Islam out and let people like Tom's friends live in peace? I don't think the terrorists will do us the favor of telling us. So, where do we turn? Do we ask Moslems to turn on their co-religionists? I've heard of exactly one such instance. What I've heard a lot more of is that Moslems themselves don't know who's going to go jihadi on us. They often express surprise that their friend, neighbor, or relative engaged in terrorism. If Moslems themselves can't tell who's a "politicized fundamentalist," how on earth can we?

Some people naively claim that Moslems are driven to violence by poverty, or disenfranchisement, or inability to fit into the dominant culture, or some other sociological factor. This argument ignores Moslem terrorism in Moslem countries. It ignores the relatively priveledged backgrounds of most of the 9/11 mass murderers. It ignores the second-generation terrorists who speak the language perfectly and know the culture from the inside.

So what's left? Most Moslems are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Moslems. Why do we have to take the risk that the next Moslem we allow into our country will resort to violence?

Proposed solutions (and not a Final Solution, Conrad you scallawag!):

1. Stop all immigration of Moslems into the US. A change in the law (the 1965 Immigration Act) allowed them in; another change can keep them out.

2. Stop issuing family reunification visas, except for spouses and minor children. (This also addresses a larger immigration issue, but is certainly part of the solution for the Moslem problem.)

3. Enforce current laws, such as anti-polygamy laws, that apply to Islamic practices that violate our culture and customs. Female genital mutilation (found primarily among African Moslems) is another unacceptable (and, may I add, barbaric) practice that is being found more and more in our country. Violators of these laws should be deported.

4. Implement public policies that, at the very least, do not promote Islam. Better yet, implement policies that discourage it. For example, there is no excuse for amplified calls to prayer 5 times a day anywhere in the US. It violates our noise laws, and should not be allowed on that basis. (This is a point I haven't thought about very much, so I don't have other examples.) In all cases, the policies should make no reference to religion

If we make America less accomodating to alien practices, the people who want to practice them will either leave or not come in the first place. Then we can have semi-Islamic Moslems, the kind, decent people like my friends and US citizens Farooq (Afghani) and Sattar (Iraqi) live here in peaceful coexistence.

(Yes, I realize I am contradicting myself on my earlier position. My no-longer-codeine-addled brain makes me see that a certain degree of realism must somehow creep into the equation. "Cultural Moslems" appear to pose no threat, but since they are no longer true Moslems (i.e., other Moslems would kill them for apostasy), I don't think that such people would go jihadi on us. The issue remains, though: how do we tell harmless Moslems from potential jihadists?)

Squidley, seriously: Stripping people of their citizenship based on their political beliefs?

Does the phrase "free country" mean anything to you?

Sorry, I guess I still wasn't clear.

If I am not mistaken, I believe it is possible to strip the citizenship of those who promote sedition and/or treason. Islam calls for the imposition of sharia on the whole world; this necessarily means subverting and, ultimately, overthrowing those man-made laws that are not in accord with the Koran.

Again, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and we are not obligated to give free speech to those promoting treason.

The basic point: Islam is a threat to our very existence. This, and the experience of Western countries that have been foolish enough to allow their Moslem populations to grow to significant percentages of their populations, is why I believe its adherents have no place in the West.

I know, I know, I'm contradicting myself again. I still can't reconcile my desire to keep us secure and to allow "cultural Moslems" to live in peace.

As for the "free country" point, the Founding Fathers never imagined in their wildest nightmares that their descendants would ever allow so alien a group as Moslems into the country in the first place. More on this later.

Here's an excellent article that shows what it was that got Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to understand what a very real threat Islam was (and still is):


Just a disclaimer. My proposals for both Mexicans and Moslems have nothing to do with any sort of personal animus. I have had nothing but good experiences with Moslems I have known, and The Little Woman and I honeymooned in Puerto Vallarta and loved it. We'd go back in a heartbeat. I like Middle Eastern & Mexican food, and The Little Woman & I dance salsa, tango, rumba, and mambo.

The problem is that both groups are alien to our nation and culture. They are unlike us in many non-trivial ways. They simply do not belong here.

Intolerant? Maybe. Discriminatory? Definitely. One of the problems of modern PC-liberal society is that we have lost the ability to discriminate in favor of our own interests. We have lost the ability to discriminate against that which is counter to our interests.

Ask the Soviets if multicultural countries work. Ask the Yugoslavians the same question. Ask the citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ask the pre-fall Romans. Ask the Irish. Ask the Iraqis. Ask the Afrikaners. Ask the Rwandans. Ask the Congolese. Ask the Zimbabweans. Ask the Quebecois. Ask the Indians in Fiji. Ask the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia.

I see two patterns here: purge or dissolution. Quite frankly, I'd rather purge and preserve our nation than dissolve and let this experiment in democracy come to ruin.

My proposals for both Mexicans and Moslems have nothing to do with any sort of personal animus. I have had nothing but good experiences with Moslems I have known, and The Little Woman and I honeymooned in Puerto Vallarta and loved it. We'd go back in a heartbeat. I like Middle Eastern & Mexican food, and The Little Woman & I dance salsa, tango, rumba, and mambo.

TRANSLATION: I have nothing against Mexican and Muslims. Some of my best friends are Wetbacks and A-rabs and I'm really gonna miss those little brown fuckers after they've been rounded up and deported.

Nah, I'm not gonna miss 'em at all, because they don't belong here in the first place--no more than we belong in their countries. (This from someone who's spent about 1/3 of his adult life in Asia--where I don't belong. You don't either, Conrad.)

I know you're being humorously vulgar to make a point, but I don't use such words. I don't think in those terms. Sorry if I don't fit your stereotypes.

Here's what it boils down to: I'd love to go back to Mexico to visit; I just don't want to live there. Can we keep Mexico where it belongs, please--in Mexico? You know, good fences make good neighbors, and all that.

As for the Moslems, I simply want my security, like we had before they came here.

Since we can't tell the difference between moderates and terrorists, and since some terrorists are born and/or raised here, I would rather go too far and remove even the moderates, than to go not far enough and let even one more Americans be killed in the name of "Tolerance" and Political Correctness.

Let's see, there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US since 2001. You have a better chance of, among many other things, being: killed in a car accident, falling in the shower, drowning in a pool, contracting AIDS, or being murdered by your wife, than you do of being killed by a terrorist.

So, if security really is your concern, you should sell your car, stop bathing, quit swimming, become celibate and get a divorce. After that, we can talk about deporting Ahmed and his family.

Furthermore, those Muslim terrorists who actually have killed Americans have overwhelmingly been temporary visitors, not immigrants or citizens. So your proposed solution doesn't even address the problem, such as it is.

I know people who died at the WTC. A friend of mine was killed in Bali. I was in Sukarno-Hatta airport when it was bombed. I was dating a girl whose windows were broken by the bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta. My sister was stationed at the US embassy in Saudi Arabia when terrorists attempted to overrun the consulate. I have more reason than most to worry about the threat of terrorism. But I'll be damned if I will change my travel plans, much less tear up the Constitution, in response to the feeble threats of a medieval rabble.

there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US since 2001

Well, not any large-scale attacks. Still, what would you call the incident where an Egyptian opened fire on the El Al counter in LAX (2 innocents dead)? What would you call the Beltway Sniper attacks (10 dead)? Less prominent but still noted (by Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and many others) as Islamic terrorism was the Iranian-born US citizen who drove an SUV onto the UNC campus and ran over a bunch of people--in the name of Allah (9 injured).

I failed to include another important part of my proposals: in addition to forbidding any more Moslem immigration, do not allow them in as visitors, either. Aside from diplomatic and business visitors--both temporary--there should be no Moslems in the West at all.

Why? Because Islam has no place in the West. It is an extremist, totalitarian religion. It is inherently incompatible with our liberal, democractic, constitutional, and republican traditions. It demands that sharia rule supreme. It demands barbaric punishments that we deem cruel. It demands the subjugation of women. It demands that the infidels convert, be killed, or live as humiliated second-class citizens. These and other practices cannot be reconciled with our values.

The solutions most often proposed are unacceptable: "tolerate" the intolerant Moslems. "Reach out" to the "alienated" Moslems. Prepare for the loss of our way of life, to be replaced by theirs.

At the other extreme, some people promote genocide. This is not only completely unacceptable and morally repulsive, it is impossible to achieve.

What I propose is no more--and no less--than the situation that obtained before the mid 20th century: Moslems in their lands, and out of ours. Remember, there were virtually no Moslems in the US before the suicidal 1965 Immigration Act was passed. Change the law, and make it so that they cannot immigrate anymore. Make the West inhospitable for those unwilling to accept Western ways and values.

I am very sorry for your losses. I can't imagine what it was like for you. But I would think that your experiences would make you realize all the more keenly what a threat Islam is to the safety and security of all non-Moslems--or, to use their term, all infidels.

As for the Constitution, I have taken an oath to uphold and defend it. I believe in that oath. However, I fear that if we do not act now to protect it from the existential threat of Islam, we may lose our most cherished document. I would rather see the Constitution temporarily bent, even suspended, than to lose it entirely. After all, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. We do not owe religious freedom to those whose religion demands the extermination of ours. We do not owe freedom of speech to those who would abrogate ours. We do not owe all the rights and prerogatives of our civilization to those who would destroy it and replace it with their barbaric ways.

The comments to this entry are closed.