What follows is a comment I attempted to post HERE. I'm not sure it will appear, because it was, in this form, longer than blogger would accept. When I pared it down and resubmitted, I got a strange error message along with the standard notice that it had been saved for moderation. We'll see if it appears, and if not I'll try again. Meanwhile, here you go: "If Islam were merely another religion, there would be little debate over the proposed mosque. Sadly, Islam is far from being just another faith. Religion and government are joint tenants in Islam, and in practice, Islam is a system of government first - a brutal, militaristic, totalitarian system of government - and a religion - a government religion - second. Wherever it goes it insists on observing it's own law, and Islamic law runs contrary to the entire concept of individual liberty - including religious freedom - that we hold dear. Islam is the leading practitioner of slavery in the world today - first and foremost by intellectually enslaving all its followers, second by physically enslaving half its own (women) and third by physically enslaving all the subjugated in conquered lands. It is not just intolerant of all opposing views, it has a track record of brutally lethal violence against those views.
Just call them Dhimmicrats: in an expedience borne of mental illness, the left manifests a bizarre ease with radical Islam. The left's enemy is America, obviously, and the enemy of their enemy is their friend, right? Never mind what Islam has to say and do about leftist sacred cows such as aberrant sexual partnerships or women's rights. No worries there. As with all historical alliances with evil, this arrangement will work fine for them right up until it doesn't. Then, long past the point of no return, what they've known all along will be undeniable: with Islam, you're either at the table or you're on the menu. Of course, there's no room for others at the Islam's table, and Quisling makes a fine entree...
The argument that approximately 60% of Muslims are "lukewarm" is of little comfort, if one bothers with the obvious math: the remaining (approximate) 40% - the acknowledged fanatics and their ardent supporters - number somewhere north of 400 million. Beyond that, 600 million lukewarm followers (consent) are far more dangerous than 600 million standing united against the oppression (dissent). Western civilization cannot, as claimed above, prevail against 400 million enemy fanatics by "leading an exemplary life, as a true follower of Christ." It is at best naive to think that any group of humans can lead an exemplary life anyway. (We had a better chance at this than most, and look what we've done with it.) Then comes the obvious truth that there are times when such passivity is not just inappropriate, but immoral. As His crucifixion drew near, Christ himself admonished his disciples to buy swords, even if it meant selling their clothes. This is just such a time. Turning the other cheek accomplishes nothing beyond exposing the jugular. Christianity is not a suicide pact with evil, regardless of perverse insinuations to the contrary.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact either. It's actually quite the opposite. Only a jackass can claim to be honoring the First Amendment by welcoming practitioners of an enemy doctrine that spawns precisely the oppression it was written to prevent. It is not in any way contrary to the First Amendment to deny an oppressive state religion a foothold in America.
This is the difference between being legalistic, which we see everywhere these days, and being moral, which we hardly see at all. Any nation can write laws (they all do) but very few have ever produced a legitimately moral code. We did, and that's what once set us apart. America was built on that moral code, by the controlled immigration of people who wanted to actively live by that code and enjoy the freedom it produced. Quotas were set, and the importation of our enemies was once recognized for the madness it is. Such people came here, of course, but if they hated the place or couldn't make it, they mostly went back home. If they stayed, it meant they had found some measure of success and had succumbed to societal pressure to become part of things. No more. The notion that immigrants should assimilate has been replaced by a cowardly willingness to let them annihilate. Now we not only import the hostile, we look the other way as millions more sneak in. Once here, we educate them, subsidize them, build them foot baths at our airports and pretend it's OK that they impose themselves and their dark ways at any place and in every place, including ground zero.
It's not OK. Not at all.
Islam is not our greatest threat. Legalistic acceptance of the oppression it represents is what frightens me. I dread what's coming in America. With all the legalistic thinkers among us, embracing one form of oppression or another, we're gonna need real blind luck to avoid ushering in another police state after the current one collapses.
On War, Gold, and My Years in Congress
2 days ago