I didn’t try to shut down discussion… I merely provided proof that my reference to Goode as a racist, nativist bigot was based on statements he made. If you’d like to explain why I’m wrong and why Goode’s statements are in no way racist, nativist or bigoted, be my guest.

Instead of rallying behind Goode, why not just ask the questions? I can’t really feel too badly that the MSM isn’t asking the questions and is becoming distracted by Goode’s idiocy, because Spencer is doing the same thing here. Instead of asking if it’s okay to ask the questions or asking why the MSM hasn’t asked the question why not just ask the questions!?

And for any who will try to discredit this comment because I referred to Goode as a racist, nativist bigot, here is a direct quote with evidence of the allegation:

We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East [racism/ethnic bigotry] to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States [religious bigotry] if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped [nativism].

The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com
A question for 2007
By Diana West
Published December 29, 2006

Taking a whack at prognostication at the end of 2005, it wasn’t hard to imagine, as I did, that 2006 would be a rotten year for freedom of speech. Both inside the Islamic world and, more alarmingly, outside the Islamic world, Shariah laws prohibiting criticism of Islam were already working smoothly. When in 2005 we watched the death-penalty-seeking prosecution of editor Ali Mohaqeq Nasab for “blasphemy” in U.S.-liberated Afghanistan, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state. When in 2005 we watched the early stages of what later became known as “Cartoon Rage” in Denmark, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state of mind. It wasn’t exactly going out on a limb to predict things would only get worse.
And, of course, in 2006, they did. Just ask Abdul Rahman if you can find him. The “apostate” fled Afghanistan for his life last spring. Or Robert Redeker, if you can find him. The teacher who published a critique of Islam in September still lives in hiding in France. Or maybe Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. The Bangladeshi journalist faces the death penalty when he goes on trial in January for “blasphemy” and treason for writing favorably about Israel and unfavorably about Islamic terrorism. Of course, such censorship is “Over There” and beyond, not in the United States of America, right? And it can’t, as they say, happen here. Right? Please, right?
I called 2006 “The Year of Speaking Dangerously,” and that was before anyone likely imagined seeing “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” placards on jihadist display outside the Danish Embassy in London. What kind of year will 2007 be? What I fear most is that it will turn out to be “The Year of Shutting Up.” As in: Why speak dangerously when you can simply not speak at all?
In fact, the Year of Shutting Up probably began back in September when Pope Benedict famously argued that the practice of forced conversion — key to Islamic expansion over the centuries — is inimical to both faith and reason. The eruption of anger among Muslims at such criticism was instantaneous and severe. Just shut up, the umma exclaimed. Basically, the pope did exactly that.
At the time, Daniel Pipes explained why placating such anger with silence was dangerous for the West: “The Muslim uproar has a goal — to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order.”
Mr. Pipes’ language — “shariah norms in the West,” “the imposition of an Islamic order” — evokes a potential transformation of our culture that is nothing short of revolutionary. Our elites seem not to have the slightest clue how devastating such a change, which comes under the rubric of Islamization, would be to our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that they don’t know the difference between “an Islamic order” and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization — or even that there is a difference.
There are exceptions. In November, there was Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, who stood up for constituents’ free speech under CAIR pressure. Now Rep. Virgil Goode, Virginia Republican, has become both the lone standard-bearer of free speech about Islam and the favorite whipping boy of the PC elites. In a letter to constituents about the decision of Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, to use a Koran at his swearing-in ceremony, Mr. Goode expressed what I take to be his recognition that the laws of Islam — which prohibit religious freedom, freedom of speech and conscience, equality before the law and women’s rights — do not augment but rather contravene the founding principles of the United States.
He also wrote: “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.” It’s difficult to argue with Mr. Goode’s logic. Indeed, the test case of the age — Europe — demonstrates that Islamic immigration brings Islamic law, which is demonstrably at odds with American values and beliefs. Forgoing debate, however, Mr. Goode’s critics have resorted to name-calling and platitudes about “tolerance,” failing utterly to notice the gross intolerance of the Islamic tradition. Worst of all, their tactics seem designed to shut up Mr. Goode, and anyone else who might follow his bold example. Will they?
It’s the question of 2007.

Did anyone hear Michael Medved attack Virgil Goode and Debbie Schlussel during the last Friday, Hour 1 radio broadcast? I think it’s possible to criticize both of them without calling them names, but he chose the latter and dismissed them completely, used them as object lessons and examples of rank bigotry. Echoes of Vinnie, Beth and Mark on last week’s thread.

RD on December 28, 2006 at 5:14 PM

I use to like Medved… Shame, I think that he is now in the category of “useful useless idiot”.

Did anyone hear Michael Medved attack Virgil Goode and Debbie Schlussel during the last Friday, Hour 1 radio broadcast? I think it’s possible to criticize both of them without calling them names, but he chose the latter and dismissed them completely, used them as object lessons and examples of rank bigotry. Echoes of Vinnie, Beth and Mark on last week’s thread.

I’d like to hear what any of them have to say about it now in light of Robert Spencer’s clip, or do they see them as totally separate issues?

RD on December 28, 2006 at 5:14 PM

Isn’t it amazing how the mighty look down upon them that made them?

Oh, sorry, we’re not businessmen who are padding Mr. Medved’s pockets to lie and support publically their position while they use illegal immigrants for legalized slavery in their factories, are we?

My bad!

It may be unpopular. But is it UNTRUE? The intellectually honest among us are not xenophobes, we merely see cultures that take the long view (thousands of years) prosper. The CHINESE, for example. Patient people who are eating us from the inside. Islam is next. seejanemom on December 28, 2006 at 9:32 AM

I’m not yet 45 but I am screaming it from the rooftops.

“Its Germany, 1938, folks! Hell-OOooo…”

Support Conservative Bloggers !!!!

seejanemom on December 28, 2006 at 9:44 AM

You’re really right, except this time, Neville Chamberlain has many, many helpers on the road to appeasement and ultimate sell-out.

Except this time, it seems that the U. S. and the West is ready to sell out Israel instead of Czechoslovakia, and it’s Iran and Islam instead of Germany, and Ahmidinejad instead of Hitler.

The threat of holocaust is, however, the same if not greater.

In the battle to come,

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.”
“Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.”
Theodore Roosevelt

VikingGoneWild on December 28, 2006 at 11:09 AM

It may not be quite too late.

Until then, I pray for God to forgive our collective indifference and to watch over and Bless American Troops everywhere, the IDF, and our true allies.

They will need at least that while our leaders give away the West.

Woody

I’d like to hear what any of them have to say about it now in light of Robert Spencer’s clip, or do they see them as totally separate issues?

Considering the current radical Islamic activity world wide, a similar question to Rep. Ellison is more than reasonable, especially in light of the strong language the Koran demands of foolowers of Mohammed, and those unconquered by the sword of Islam.

The leftist utopians are under the mistaken belief that the same guiding principles of old (read: Christian philosophy) that helped forge the liberty, rights & responsibility championed in our constitution are somehow universaly embraced by those of other cultures, faiths and worldviews.

This way of thinking is to our peril & possible doom if left unchecked. This is not xenophobia, intolerance or bigotry, but prudence, caution and foresight because we all know that not all ideas are good; not beliefs are true and not all philosophies noble….

…but the gutless wonders of the msm will suck up the PC poop and sling mud at the messenger.

Happy Christmas & Merry New Year!

Yes they are. We really need to support Virgil Goode!

Robert Spencer dispenses with the usual MSM hysterics and takes a closer look at the controversy…….

Yep.

George Orwell described the liberal’s mechanism of historical revisionism so well in 1984, didn’t he? And his description of “doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime” closely maps to the concept of “Politically Uncorrect,” too.

don’t forget about honora & Constantine as well

Starblazer on December 28, 2006 at 12:11 PM

Ah, yes. If only …

CyberCipher on December 28, 2006 at 12:14 PM

Heh. As soon as I hit “submit” I realized that honora would be hurt, and that I will Never Submit! (My daughter got me the t-shirt for Christmas…)

…

don’t forget about honora & Constantine as well

Starblazer on December 28, 2006 at 12:11 PM

Ah, yes. If only I could forget honora and Constantine — but they have that annoying habit of “turning up” again and again and again.