Is That Legal?

I'm imagining something like the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall. Jefferson steps out and says, "I've been reading what you've written and it's clear you know nothing at all about the Constitution or the theory behind it. How you got to be Representative of anything is a mystery to me." Then he would have horsewhipped him.

Or he may have quoted himself, saying, "I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man," and then horsewhipped him.

(To be honest, I have no idea what Jefferson would say, but I'm pretty sure horsewhipping would be involved.)

As a law student at UVa, I must say that I'm glad I stayed registered back home so that I can tell people Goode isn't my representative.

So amazingly ignorant... bah.

Th. Jefferson, as an adherent of Polybius, judicious Polybius (Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Pt. 1, Ch. 8) would horsewhip all of us, especially the more liberal and free-spirited among us:

[The people are at first] well pleased with [democracy], and set a high value on equality and freedom of speech. But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracyis abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of othersdegenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch. (Polybius Histories, VI. 9., 287-289 Loeb translation.)

More to the point, there is wisdom in the Congressmans statement to the extent that certain elements operating under color of Islam are utterly incompatible with our tradition of secular political authority. The Congressman just should have said it more diplomatically, without using the word Muslim so much. Yes, I sat through all the constitutional law stuff and I get it. However, while you counsel some not to get too carried away with their prejudices, you should likewise be counseled not to get too carried away with your platitudes, because there are virtue and vice in both. Remember the Lebanese proverb: better to have a thousand enemies outside the house than a single enemy in it.

certain elements operating under color of Islam are utterly incompatible with our tradition of secular political authority.

That's true, but it's equally true of elements operating under color of Christianity, Judaism, and no doubt other religions as well. If we surveyed all such 'elements' among America's citizens, I suspect we'd find a lot more calling themselves Christian than Muslim.

Remember the Lebanese proverb: better to have a thousand enemies outside the house than a single enemy in it.

I'm well of aware of the dangers of enemies within, which is one of the reasons I feel compelled to speak out when a member of Congress shows such contempt for the Constitution and for our government's secular tradition.

Besides, if we become too obsessed with the "Muslim threat", we may fail to defend against the real enemies of democracy: the bicycle riders.

Thankfully, someone has the courage to tell it like it is. You all are too worried about being politically correct that you can't even think for yourselves. Your part of the herd mentality that is afraid to say anything different for fear that you might not be liked. Your insecuritywith yourself prohibits you from thinking and realizing the Goode is accurate with his statments and isn't afraid to say it.

John, I'm happy to see that 'your' also comfortable with making up your own rules of spelling and punctuation! Keep it up, my good man! Don't follow the herd!

The real enemies of democracy are not the bike riders, though they are my enemies, especially on Mt. Sinai Road. The enemies of democracy, and of liberty itself, are those who will not drink beer for any reason.

Whosoever denies the beverage which predates even bread as a staple of humankind through some dark, grotesque, and terrifying manner of thinking is clearly incapable of a degree of cognition sufficient to even pour pee out of a boot with instructions written under the heel, let alone engage in deliberative self-government.

You will find no other litmus test which will so accurately reveal whether a given individual is compatible to truth, justice, and the American way.

Following up on an earlier post, anybody who is interested should check out The Good Beer Store behind the Barbecue Joint in Chapel Hill, or Sam’s Quik Shop in Durham near Swift Ave off the Durham Freeway. Both have huge selections.

A cost-benefit analysis, with lives being weighted the most, is the best way to approach Virgil Goode's sole policy proposal, which is a halt to muslim immigration.

Whatever the outcome of a cost benefit analysis, it will only be valid if it is actually acknowledged that muslim immigration, student studying, and tourist visits has a cost in treasure and lives, which September 11th, the Los Angeles El Al ticket counter shooting, the first WTC bombing, the London bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and numerous averted terrorist attacks show. Nearly every ledger has two sides to be acknowledged, and this is no exception. The outcome doesn't have to be all or nothing either. I believe that the optimal policy is reduced muslim immigration from the current ~40,000 per year to something like ~10,000 per year. We'd keep most of our international prestige and the psychic gain which a non-discriminatory immigration policy gives us, and US muslims wouldn't feel *quite* so hated as a complete ban would make them feel, but we'd have a far slower rate of growth in the sea in which terrorists swim and recruit. If we made sure that the reduced flow was more proportionately the cream of the crop than the current flow is, then we'd have less economic losses (they are highly educated) than pure reduced numbers of muslim immigrants alone would indicate.

What Virgil Goode wrote is obviously true. Post 1965 immigration policy,if allowed to continue, will change the demographics of America.

You don't like the fact that Goode is expresssing a demographuc preference. The fact that he does express a demographic prefernce-Euro-American Christian-doesn't make him a moron.

You obviously have a demographic preference also Professor Muller. I suspect that your demographic prefernce for America is this:Euro-American Christians a minority;hispanics,asians and muslims a majority.

Vdare.com is a great website. Peter Brimelow is a great patriotic American.

v

What did Mr. Jefferson say?

"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience. They differ from us little but in their principles of government, and most of those (merchants excepted) who come here, are sufficiently disposed to adopt ours." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." - Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118