The Tar Pit

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Frum Smacks President's Koranic Moment

An excerpt from David Frum, on the second Inaugural Address of President George W. Bush:

The crowd didn't applaud much during the president's second inaugural.... The speech was in many ways a disappointing piece of work. But instead of criticizing the result, let's try to understand what went wrong.

Yesterday's Inaugural address was a fine and tough 14-minute speech that was allowed to bloat to 20 minutes.


Unneeded words invite dangerous editing. When a speech is short and hard and perfect, it protects itself from unwise interventions. But when it gets long, senior officials with particular agendas -- or particular bugaboos -- feel that they can insert them into the mass without unnoticed.


"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever."

The extended meditation on good character probably began as a nod to the president's faith-based initiative and the special importance of Christianity in American life and to the president's voters. But once you mention Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount, somebody is sure to ask: "What about the Koran?" And so in it goes.

The addition, unfortunately, is almost hilariously inapt. If there is one idea above all others that the Koran emphatically rejects it is that right government relies on the "governing of the self." On the contrary, the Koran insists (a) that the self must entirely submit to the will of God and that (b) the best form of government is not self-government, but government by a leader who has likewise submitted his will entirely to God's.

Moreover, is it really true that American self-government is sustained by the words of the Koran?

And finally -- was it tactful to contrast the "truths" of Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount to the "words" of the Koran? Are we suggesting that the words of the Koran -- despite their previously undetected role in sustaining American self-government --are not in fact truths?


The high fat content in this second Bush inaugural suggests to me that something is going seriously wrong in this second Bush White House. The deep problem is not that there were seven extra minutes -- ultimately, who cares about that? The deep problem is that nobody spoke up to excise those seven minutes -- not even the normally deeply time-conscious president. To my mind, the failure to edit this speech is an indication of a broader gathering attenuation of purpose and discipline at the highest levels of the government.

While Frum's criticisms of the President's inappropriate and false affirmation of the Koran and its role in building personal character that reaffirms the American ideal of freedom are well taken, as I've posted here, here, and here, it's inclusion in the speech is not an aspect of a "gathering attenuation of purpose."

The President has long had a blind spot about the dangers of Islam, and has been slower to come to terms with that danger than most. The President and his advisors have learned nothing from their carelessness in allowing him to be photographed with terrorists Sami Al Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi as part of "Musliim Outreach" during the 2000 Presidential campaign.

That's Alamoudi in the top pic (in back and to the right of Bush, with Khaled Saffuri on the far left) and Sami Al Arian (bald, with glasses) in the lower pic.

Though neither Al Arian nor Alamoudi was arrested until 2003, their sympathies, affiliations, and ongoing investigations for terrorist activities had been public knowledge for years.

So, for that matter, has been President Bush's carelessness with Islam, so it was disappointing, but hardly surprising that he would invoke the Koran in his Inaugural Address.

Getting back to Frum, who was a speechwriter for the President during his first term, above he wrote that in poorly edited speeches "senior officials with particular agendas -- or particular bugaboos -- feel that they can insert" their agendas into those speeches, and that once someone mentions "Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount, somebody is sure to" bring up the Koran.

I wonder if he has someone in mind with that particular agenda.


Friday, January 21, 2005

Cornyn Amnesty Interview: Deconstructing Texas' pro illegal alien Senator

After being appointed by Arlen Specter to Chair the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, John Cornyn (R-TX) was interviewed by Ernesto Londono of Al Dia, the Spanish language affiliate of the Dallas Morning News, and spoke of his desire to legalize millions of illegal aliens:

Mr. Cornyn says he would like to continue a project he started in 2003 to create a guest worker program that would give temporary legal worker status to illegal immigrants in the United States. The proposal, which expired with the end of Congress last year, would have allowed foreigners to work in the country for a year at a time up to three years.

The Cornyn Amnesty would have done more than that, it would have legalized illegals who took jobs even after it was signed into law:

Sec. 218A.(c)(2):

EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an alien may apply for admission to the United States under section 101(a)(15)(W) without regard to any previous period of unlawful presence in the United States if the alien applies for such admission not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2003.


Sec. 218A.(f) UNDOCUMENTED GUEST WORKERS- An alien employed in the United States on the date of enactment of the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2003 who does not have proper documentation of authorization to enter the United States shall be required to show evidence that the alien--

(1) was in the United States on the date of enactment of the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2003; and

(2) is employed on the date on which the guest worker registers to participate in the guest worker program.

That would have meant that illegals who crossed the border anytime before President Bush signed the bill (had it passed as written) would have been eligible for Cornyn's Amnesty so long as they got a job within the following year.

Back to the article:

In an interview with Al Dia, The Dallas Morning News' Spanish-language newspaper, Mr. Cornyn suggested that he would hope for cooperation from the Mexican government in working to overhaul the immigration laws.

Mexico has no power or incentive to help overhaul a system which has rewarded 2.7 million illegal aliens with the Reagan Amnesty and another million illegals with the Clinton Amnesty.

Talk of legalizing illegals from politicians like Cornyn and President Bush only encourages more Mexicans and other foreign nationals to break our laws and become illegal aliens.

Question: Immigration reform is a very polarizing issue on Capitol Hill. How do you plan to push through an immigration reform bill?

Answer: This is an area that remains very contentious in Congress, and part of what we're going to have to do is educate members of Congress and the public about what our options are. Doing nothing is not an option.

It isn't members of Congress and the public who oppose legalizing illegals that need educating, it's pro-illegal alien Republicans like Senator Cornyn. This is the false dilemma of the pro-Amnesty crowd in the GOP: that our only options are doing nothing, mass deportations, and Amnesty (even as they pretend that their plans to legalize illegals aren't Amnesty).

Watch, here it comes:

Question: What are the options?

Answer: During the last 20 years, we've done a very poor job of controlling our borders. In a post-9/11 world, we must do a better job at controlling them. Ten million people are living here outside of our laws. Some people suggest we ought to have massive deportations. But I don't believe that the American people have the stomach for that, nor have we calculated the damage [that would cause] to our economy.

Reaching a consensus on reform should be a priority.

The president's leadership on this issue with his temporary worker program is a very positive step. This [appointment] will give me a chance to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and elevate this issue.

If Cornyn would take off his pro-illegal blinders, he would recognize that legalizing illegals has already failed under Reagan and Clinton, leaving us with the problem that we now face. We already have a consensus: enforce our laws and fine those who employ illegal aliens, as much as Cornyn wants to ignore the truth.

The solution is self deportation.

Question: What's your personal take on amnesty?

Answer: "I think amnesty is the third rail of the immigration debate. I understand why some people object so firmly to it because they say we don't want to reward people for illegal conduct.

But we have to deal with some of the economic realities of why people come to the United States. In many countries just next door to us, people don't have an opportunity to provide for their families, and they do what any of us would do. We all understand that. It's a matter of striking a balance between that and respecting both our laws and the efforts of those who have come here legally. I think rather than talking past each other, we need to start talking to each other. Trying to reconcile all these conflicting emotions and goals is not going to be easy.

Someone call Laura Ingraham, we've got a "but monkey."

"I understand why people don't want amnesty, but..."

How can legalizing illegal aliens respect either our laws or the efforts of those who have come here legally? What about those foreigners who want to come here legally and haven't broken our laws, even though President Bush chooses to ignore such lawbreaking and constantly promises to reward it? Guest worker amnesties inherently favor the illegal alien who has entered illegally and can prove that he has worked illegally (likely by way of perjurious IRS forms) over the lawful guest worker applicant who didn't trespass and didn't steal a job.

Politicians like Bush and Cornyn need to stop denigrating honorable occupations like construction, meatpacking, manufacturing, hotel, restaurant, and janitorial services, etc., as being beneath consideration for Americans. Has it occurred to these cloistered politicos that the average American blue collar worker might not want to be the only English speaker on a crew at wages that have eroded because the Open Borders Lobby doesn't want to enforce the law against illegal aliens?

Question: What do you think of the role Mexican officials have played in shaping this debate?

Answer: Mexico has been very active on this front. I've enjoyed our meetings with colleagues from the Mexican government. But they need to understand how controversial the subject can be here and not add to controversy.

Cornyn ought to stop listening to corrupt Mexican officials who aren't his constituency. Their interests are not American interests.

Question: What were some of the shortcomings of past landmark immigration reform bills?

Answer: The biggest shortcoming was the lack of enforcement. The last big immigration bill was sold on the basis of allowing people to adjust status while also getting tough. We just haven't done that. It's sort of like Prohibition. You know when there's such vast disregard for the law, there is something wrong.

As part of this process, we need to have a national conversation. The arena is primarily given to interest groups that scare people. And the result of that is that we're doing nothing for too long.

The reason we've done nothing is largely because the GOP took a hike on illegal aliens after Proposition #187 passed in California in 1994. The retreat was led by Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, and Texas gubernatorial candidate George W. Bush. Later, the GOP-controlled Gingrich Congress passed two Section 245(i) Amnesties for President Clinton to sign.

President Bush has done little to confront illegal aliens since taking office that wasn't related to the War Against Jihad. Bush sat silently as his Treasury Department wrote guidelines for banks to accept Mexico's matricula consular ID cards for illegal aliens. Bush did little to end the catch and release policies that have allowed the number of illegal aliens to abscond after losing their deportation hearings to double in his first term to more than 400,000 today.

Illegal aliens have "vast disregard for the law" because our politicians have "vast disregard for the law."

What Cornyn fails to understand is that America has been having a national conversation about illegal aliens for a decade, but he and the Open Borders Lobby in the Republican Party haven't been listening.

Question: Would you want to see stricter enforcement in some areas?

Answer: I think we need better enforcement. There need to be caps on legal immigration. America is not overwhelmed. But we simply can't accept everybody. I think we are well on our way to better enforcement. Part of that is due to efforts to combat terrorism. But if we don't have comprehensive immigration reform as a part of our border security and homeland security efforts, we're doomed to fail.

It is a Pavlovian impossibility to simultaneously reward and discourage a behavior. Amnesty rewards lawbreaking. Legalizing illegal aliens is Amnesty.

Amnesty is failure. Amnesty failed under Reagan, and failed under Clinton.

Cornyn advocates Amnesty. Bush advocates Amnesty. McCain and Hatch and Cannon and Kennedy and Berman and Craig and Kolbe and Flake all advocate Amnesty. So does the New York Times. Every last one of them is an advocate for a failed policy that History and common sense inform us can't possibly work.

And every last one of them is secure in their elitist certainty that they are better, smarter, and more compassionate than the average Americans from all walks of life who are weary of our politicians' excuses for not doing their jobs.


National Clergy Council Chairman whitewashes President's Inaugural invocation of the Koran

Rev. Rob Schenck, Chariman of the otherwise conservative National Clergy Council, has defended the positive invocation of the Koran by President Bush in yesterday's Second Inaugural Address.

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character -- on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before -- ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Schenck (, described in the article as helping to "lead a dialogue with Islamic leaders in Morocco this spring," explained:
"Nothing the president said is untrue," said Schenck after attending the swearing in ceremony at the Capitol.

"The Koran contains words directly reflecting Biblical material. This is a wise way for our country to build bridges of understanding to the Islamic world, and like St. Paul did with the pagan Greeks, it's a even way to gain a hearing on Judeo-Christian concepts of liberty."


Schenck will host a celebration for religious leaders tonight on Capitol Hill. He is available for further comment at 202-546-8329 ext 106 or on site at 703-447-7686.

President Wisely Notes Koran in Inaugural Speech
Christian Wire Service | January 20, 2005

If a future version of the New Revised Satanic Bible has a chapter or two on family values, would a future President be wise or truthful to cite it as supporting "America's ideal of freedom?" Would an older Reverend Schenck say so?

After all, doesn't the Satanic Bible, however darkly, "directly reflect Biblical material?"

The New Testament instructs that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)

Mohammed and the Koran aren't mentioned or prophesied in the Book of Hebrews. It's not clear how President Bush or Reverend Schenck can make a truthful case that Mohammeds's Koran (which calls for Allah to curse Jews and Christians in Sura 9:30) reaffirms "ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Oh wait, I overlooked the very next sentence of Hebrews 13:9, which does allude to the Koran: "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines."

Schenck clumsily tries to draw a parallel between a President touting the Koran in his Inaugural Address and an Apostle evangelizing the Greeks. In Acts 17, Paul visited Athens and in the midst of an idolatrous pantheon on Mars' hill observed an altar to an "Unknown God." He instructed the Stoics and the Epicureans that were with him that the Unknown God they worshipped in ignorance is the God of the Bible, but that the time of God's winking at their ignorance was over. Paul did not tell the Greeks that their idolatry and false doctrines reaffirmed anything "yesterday, today, and forever," yet this is what President Bush told the world about the Koran yesterday.

With that in mind, it would be a gross oversight to overlook Mohammed's Koranic curse against Christians and Jews in Sura 9:30 without noting God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed;" and also the Apostle Paul's instruction in Romans 4 that Christians are counted as heirs by faith to the promises God made to Abraham in Genesis.

One can have the Bible or one can have the Koran, but one can not have the two together. It is both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible that reaffirm the personal character on which America's ideal of freedom depends, not the words of the Koran, and President Bush erred greatly, and not for the first time, in promoting confusion on that point.


Thursday, January 20, 2005

Hugh Hewitt misses the Inaugural point he was meant to miss

About the President's Inaugural Address, Hugh Hewitt writes, "here's the paragraph that I think provides the key for understanding the speech:"

"From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?"

Hewitt explains:

"These are the questions that have not yet been fully answered and about which debate rages every day both here and abroad. But they are the crucial questions, and the president's speech was intended to and did in fact focus the country and the world on the right questions, and eloquently frames the view that matters most, that of generations not yet born."

The questions are indeed crucial, but Hugh glosses over the context of the President's two preceding paragraphs:

"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character -- on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before -- ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time."

I've analyzed the serious problems with the President's ill-advised reference to the Koran in a positive light here. Today a caller phoned in to Hugh's radio show and mentioned her unease with the President's remarks about the Koran. Hugh gave it a sort of an Allah's Family Values spin and the caller hung up relieved, but without cause.

The Koran is instrumental in building the kind of character that denies freedom rather than advances it. If the President and others shade the truth about Islam, then however our generation may have advanced freedom, millions will remain in or return to bondage.

In following his elevation of the Koran, the President admonishes that "our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time."

Bigotry against whom? In this context, the President can only mean bigotry against the followers of Mohammed who are building their characters on the poisonous words of the Koran.

Is it bigotry to state that Nazism and Communism are incompatible with freedom? Not in a thousand years. It would certainly be bigotry to say that Germans and Russians are incapable of preserving a free and democratic society, just as it would be bigotry to say that Arabs are likewise incapable. In our lifetimes the Lebanese enjoyed a free and open society before their Civil War, before the Muslims drove out the Christians.

Here is a real question for our Age:

Is Islam capable of a free and pluralistic society?

Turkey is the best attempt, but the Turks have driven out most of their Christian population in the last fifty years, and fifty years before that the waning Ottomans saved them the trouble of driving out Assyrians and Armenians by way of a series of genocides. Even today the Kurds bridle under Turkish rule. So, whatever one might list as Turkish accomplishments, pluralism and freedom for religious and ethnic minorities are lacking.

This is not bigotry, this is History.

So, let the democratic experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan proceed, because the experiment is noble though misguided, but not without our eyes wide open. The nations of the Middle East are plagued by a triumphalist and tyrannical religion. Even if Mohammedan passions abate for a time, the words of the Suras, the exhortations to jihad and the curses on Jews and Christians will await an inevitable rediscovery and revival.

On that day, the cause of freedom will not advance.

Inaugural Impression

PrestoPundit takes a few swings at the President's Inaugural Address. Apparently the big-spending of W's first four years left an impression too big for today's sequel to Bush's Age of Liberty speech to erase.

I didn't mind the sweeping neoconservative, neo-Wilsonian rhetoric, I’m gangbusters for the War Against Jihad, though I'd prefer we'd call it what it is.

President Bush takes oath on Bible, elevates Koran

After being sworn in today for his second term as America's 43rd President, the Honorable George W. Bush gave his Inaugural Address, which included the following passage:

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character -- on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before -- ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

"The words of the Koran?" Those are the words of Mohammed, a 7th Century Arabian conqueror and tyrant. At what point did the Koran become a contributor to the American ideal of freedom? At what point did multiculturalism and political correctness make it so imperative that even a Republican President would choose to ignore the truth and elevate the likes of Mohammed to the level of even Moses, let alone of Jesus?

The truths of Sinai are embodied in the Ten Commandments. The Sermon on the Mount is an essential revelation of the teachings and character of Jesus Christ. These are implicitly understood as foundational elements of Western and American Civilization. Can this be said of the words of the Koran?

Sura 9 of the Koran is understood by Muslim scholars to be the last Sura "given" to Mohammed, and as such is the final word, trumping any previous Sura with which it might conflict. It is essentially the Great Commission of Mohammedans, and not surprisingly, it deals extensively with the practice of jihad, or holy war. Here are a few passages from Sura 9:

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

That doesn't sound much like "turn the other cheek."

9:12 But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
9:13 Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
9:14 Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,
9:15 And still the indignation of their hearts. For God will turn (in mercy) to whom He will; and God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
9:16 Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though God did not know those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends and protectors except God, His Apostle, and the (community of) Believers? But God is well- acquainted with (all) that ye do.

More exhortations by Mohammed for war in Allah's name. Could Osama bin Laden have said it more clearly?

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
9:31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

It's somewhat confusing as to how words like these could have contributed to the American ideal of freedom, given that Mohammed actually calls for curses on Jews and Christians, who happen to be the very people President Bush was speaking to when he mentioned Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount.

9:86 When a Sura comes down, enjoining them to believe in God and to strive and fight along with His Apostle, those with wealth and influence among them ask thee for exemption, and say: "Leave us (behind): we would be with those who sit (at home)."
9:87 They prefer to be with (the women), who remain behind (at home): their hearts are sealed and so they understand not.
9:88 But the Apostle, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.

This passage sums it up: Suras which command war in the name of Allah are to be obeyed without question. What contribution to the private character of Muslims did President Bush have in mind when he mentioned such "words of the Koran?"

9:111 God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

So goes the promise of eternal paradise for those martyred in Mohammedan holy war. These are the very words that keep millions of jihadists and sympathizers in bondage; can they have made any contribution to America's ideal of freedom?

9:123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him.

Again we see Mohammed's Islamic triumphalism assert itself from the pages of the Koran. Could such words have produced the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? The words of the Koran stand in hostile opposition to America's ideal of freedom.

What President Bush has done in his address is reiterate his fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the war America now fights. The words of the Koran do not reinforce America's ideal of freedom; the words of Mohammed directly inspire the mortal threat that Islam poses to American Civilization. If we do not understand our enemy, what are our prospects for victory?

This is not to suggest that our efforts in Iraq and the Middle East ought to be abandoned, as American security better defended with misguided motives than not at all. However, an implicit premise of the inadequately named "War on Terror" is that the fight is not only to save the West from Islam, but also to save Islam from itself. President Bush has spoken of Islam as a "peaceful religion," hijacked by renegades who are untrue to the essential spirit of the faith. Yet Islam's essential spirit is nowhere more explicit than in the words of the Koran, and those words put Mohammed squarely on the side of the bin Laden, al Zarqawi, Mullah Omar, the House of Saud, the Al Aqsa Martyrs, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every band of fanatics and terrorists who ever shed blood in the name of Allah.

The faith is sometimes expressed that somehow the taste of liberty can foment an Islamic Reformation, modeled after the Christian Reformation of the 16th Century. What is overlooked is that Reformation was possible for Christianity only because for centuries there had been a harsh Christian Deformation of the true message and character of Christ.

Such is not true of Islam. In fact, folks like President Bush who try to put a peaceful mask on Islam are actually deforming any genuine understanding of Mohammed. It is bin Laden and other jihadist murderers who are the reformers of Islam, seeking a return to first principles. That is the nature of the foe we fight, and the first principles of Mohammedan Islam will not evaporate so long as the words of the Koran are accorded any respect or reverence, especially by the President of the United States of America.


Wednesday, January 19, 2005

New York Times gets behind Bush Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

The Gray Lady has listened to the President's thinly veiled remarks about his guest worker amnesty proposal for illegal aliens, and appears to like what she hears.

In dismissing Congressman J.D. Hayworth's (R-AZ), warnings against "amnesty-light" last week, the Times observed:

With friends like these at his back, Mr. Bush deserves more public support from the Republicans who can be more thoughtful on this issue, like Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration. Democrats should also start to rally behind the White House on this issue, especially if people like Senator Edward Kennedy can participate in the crafting of such an important reform that could make the system fairer, safer and more humane.

The President's Shoelaces
New York Times Editorial | January 18, 2005

"With friends like these?"

Does irony get any better?

McCain and Cornyn are two of the most radically pro-illegal alien, pro-amnesty Senators in the Republican Party. Each of them has an amnesty proposal to legalize illegals sitting in committee in the Senate - S. 1461 and S. 1387, respectively.

Democrat Ted Kennedy is the author of the ill-conceived 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act and the infamous diversity lottery. Americans ought to be wary of "immigration reforms" favored by Chappaquiddick's Extracurricular Diving Champion.

The Los Angeles Times also reported yesterday that "McCain is working with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the Senate's key Democratic player on the issue, to try to develop bipartisan legislation."

Not that a Kennedy-McCain alliance for the Bush Amnesty is much of a surprise for anyone who's read The Tar Pit.

Yet Republicans on the fence who've been led by President Bush to believe that his guest worker amnesty to legalize millions of illegal aliens is a benign and responsible policy ought to take some time for further consideration. Can we take at face value an agenda that deputizes pro-illegal alien Republicans like McCain and Cornyn, and multiculture warrior Ted Kennedy, all with the blessing of the left wing New York Times?

Those Little Green Lights

Much of the past week has been spent tinkering with the code and mechanics of The Tar Pit, and actual blogging has taken a back seat. The BlogRoll on the left is finally functional, except that the little update-indicating green lights I installed appear on the line above the blog title they're indicating, rather than on the same line. Some tinkering with the style sheet will probably take care of it, but that will have to wait.

Over on the right is the list of the Hugh Hewitt Inspired Blogs, inspired by none other than radio host Hugh Hewitt. At the moment those links (and those alone) don't open up in a new window. Tack another on the to do list.