Conservatism is Not About Principle

Limbaugh put Republicans who work "around the edges" of the president's policies under his heel

Yesterday I wrote that conservatism "is not about principle; it is about "preserving" the status quo from the liberals attempts to rip apart conservative values any further than they already have. Conservative values are not based on objectivity, but rather on the subjectivity that the free market is the best, not that it is right."

This is the reason Rush Limbaugh is said to be driving a wedge in the Republican Party, with about twenty-five percent of Republicans--according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel--rooting for Limbaugh, and leaders like Mitt Romney distancing themselves from him by not mentioning his name in their own comments of caution.

"'He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. And he has been up front about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh. And I think that's the wrong philosophy for America,' Emanuel said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.'

"I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?" [Limabugh] asked. Fox News Politics

Listen to the conservatives and the Republican leaders. Unfortunately, they don't want President Obama to fail, because if he fails, the nation fails, and if the nation fails, the world-wide depression would be politically disastrous--for anyone who thinks his mission is to "restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation."

It would be disastrous politically for people like Romney and Huckabee and any other politician who says he or she does not want this un-Constitutional theft of free enterprise to fail. They are giving the Libertarian Party a big boost as the only free-market party. But that is good, if the Republicans don't think capitalism is morally right.

This is what I mean when I say is not about principle; it is about "preserving" the status quo from the liberals attempts to rip apart conservative values any further than they already have. Conservative values are not based on objectivity, but rather on the subjectivity that the free market is the best, not that it is right.

Limbaugh put Republicans who work "around the edges" of the president's policies under his heel, grinding on them for trying to make those policies work because in doing so they are giving up their beliefs--beliefs which unfortunately are not principles.

If they thought capitalism was right--morally, politically, and economically--they would have seen the warning signs when President Bush told them about it in 2003, and when Congressman Barney Frank said Bush was wrong.

"According to an article by Kathleen Day in the Oct. 8, 2003, Washington Post, Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the right to approve or disapprove business activities that 'could pose risk to the taxpayers.' He told the Post he worried the Treasury Department 'would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.'

"Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were 'exaggerated,' a gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions.

“'These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,' Frank said to the Times." Business and Media Institute

Not acknowledging that capitalism is morally the only economic system that allows investors the freedom to create wealth will be a disaster for Republicans, if they manage to regain power. They will only seek their own forms and programs of "stimulating" the economy. Most Republicans said over and over that "something has to be done" to save the economy. All but one or two failed to mention free enterprise as the solution. The rest were on board with bail-outs and loans and stimulus packages.

But if the Republican return to power and play the same game as Obama and the Democrats, but with different bail-out/loan programs that eliminate what they called "pork", their programs will only contain what the Dems will then call pork.

The government needs to back off, let businesses fail because that is what businesses are supposed to do when times are bad, and everything will work its self out. That is what capitalism does. It is a self-regulating, self-correcting market, as we found out after President Reagan sat back and watched as:

"an economic tidal wave was moving in on the US Monday morning, October 19, 1987. The Tokyo exchange had experienced a record collapse in prices and panic selling. The Hong Kong exchange was wiped out. The European exchanges experienced the worst single day in their history.

"In the US panic first hit in the Chicago commodities exchange and within five minutes of the opening the markets went into free-fall. It then spread to Wall Street and the NY exchange.

"The Dow-Jones averages fell 508 points. By the time the NY exchange closed up stock market prices had dropped 22.6%, almost double the record losses of the crash of 1929. An astonishing 604.5 million shares had been traded that day more than double that of the crash of 1929. It was the greatest crash in US economic history.

"Black Monday was followed by Terrible Tuesday which was never reported by the US press. On the following Tuesday the world’s financial system came to within one hair’s breadth of extinction. It appeared that by noon that the market had in fact died. All trading in stocks, options, and futures shuddered to halt. For almost one hour the world’s capitalist system had completely collapsed. There were no buyers at any price.

"At this point of maximum crisis the Federal Reserve Board stepped in and flooded the banks with cheap credit. At 12:38 that afternoon the stack market rose from the dead. The resurrection of the market was the result of the deliberate manipulation by a few major firms to save the markets.

"Essentially leading corporations were entering the market after 1pm to buy back their own stocks which they had dumped that morning in order to stabilize the situation. Buying resumed on the market." [condensed from] The Reagan Revolution

The Fed did what it was supposed to do, and within hours the market was correcting itself. There was no rush to "nationalize" banks or insurance companies or mortgage lenders or the stock markets themselves.

There was no appeal to Congress to help with financial aid. It was not necessary then, and it was not necessary last fall when Bernanke and Paulson presented Congress with a three-page spending proposal for $800B.

"The Bush/Paulson/Bernanke 'panic' and 'plan' to hand unlimited funds and power without judicial or congressional oversight was ripped straight from the 'Chicago School's' playbook of inducing a financial panic in developing nations and then moving in to 'reform' the system... As noted here before: [the nation was] told we had only hours til the Apocalypse on Thursday, Sept. 18, [yet] we find the world still working 12 days later."

Before $1 of any of that money had been paid as bail-out, the market was beginning to correct itself. Only after spending the money did the economic system start tanking because "capitalism and individual liberty [were] not its foundation" any longer.

So I want Obama to fail too. Maybe then the capitalists will be allowed to step in repair the damage, and I hope that if that day comes the socialist pigs will be charged with crimes, maybe under the RICO laws for collaborating in dirty business.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Obama, Character, and His Better Associates

Barack Obama's Muslim Outreach Director Quits;

Proves There are Patriotic Muslim Americans

An Associated Press report in suntimes.com said that "an attorney who volunteered to help Barack Obama improve his relationship with Muslim and Arab-Americans has resigned from the campaign amid questions about his connection to a fundamentalist imam. Mazen Asbahi...an associate at the Chicago law firm Schiff Hardin, said in his letter that he served on the board of the Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund for a few weeks, but resigned ‘'as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board.'" [italics added]

An Obama advisor resigned because of allegations about someone else with whom he found himself serving? OMG. Someone in the Obama camp has scruples. Asbahi's resignation is not at all like the precedent set by the candidate himself after all the published and proven evidence of his connections with domestic terrorists, not only Bill Ayers but Acorn. [see Obama, Character, and American Exceptionalism and Inside Obama’s Acorn ]

Then there is the connection, now severed, with Obama's long-time minister Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. He also had an association with Frank Marshall Davis, identified only as Frank in Obama's memories "Dreams from My Father," a radical activist and journalist had been suspected of being a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s. Obama was introduced to "Frank" in 1970 at age 10. "In 1968, Davis published a hard-core pornographic autobiography under a pseudonym."

"During the the years that Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund, [ ] they voted to donate $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a long time supporter of Palestinian 'resistance' attacks against Israel."

"He has been accused of being an influential apologist for Yasser Arafat. At the University of Illinois, Khaldi and Obama and Michelle Obama and also Ayers and Dohrn were part of the same circle. He funded a fund raiser for Obama in 2000 when Obama ran an unsuccessful campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives. Obama and Michelle were part of the farewell party for Khaldi when he left Chicago for New York." http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/obama_questionable_connections

The other board member causing Asbahi’s resignation was Jamal Said, imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois. The Justice Department named Said as an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fundraisers.

The Republican National Committee filed a complain with the Federal Election Commission Monday, 10.06.08, accusing the Obama campaign of taking contributions from foreign nationals who are banned by U.S. law from giving to U.S. federal candidates. This story was broken by the website "Atlas Shrugs," http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_foreign_contributions/ in "The story that Atlas broke (back on July 30th) and that Newsweek's Isikoff plagiarized."

Then there is the question: Is Obama A U.S. Citizen? ""Phillip Berg has filed a suit in Federal court. [Denver Dem Convention: Clinton Supporter Files to Disqualify Obama] The suit was against Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee. It asked the court to force Obama to prove he is an American citizen.

Obama, among other things chose to "Hire the top gun attorney from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to fight the case." http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-birth-cerificate-federal-lawsuit-the-curious-behavior-of-the-obama-campaign/ CAIR has been linked for more than a decade by the Justice Department as a domestic terrorist organization begun by former Yassar Arafat and Hammas coordinators.

Why is it that one of the few advisors to the Obama campaign who has been upfront, protecting his own integrity not to mention the Obama campaign, is a Muslim who does not wish to have his own "Obama-type mistakes" of association?

If there is not more to the story of the resignation of Mazen Asbahi than I have been able to discover, my hat is off to a patriotic Muslim American.

Note: I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of the
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

American Socialism; Theism as Skepticism; sntjohnny and Me

American Socialism Is Upon Us

"Capitalism and markets [ ] are all inherently about self-interest and the pursuit of profit," said Dr. Yaron Brook. "Capitalism encourages and enables selfishness, and as long as our culture looks at profit and self-interest as vices, [ ] big government will always be preferred to free markets." [italics added] "Why Big Government Is Back, and How to Shrink It to Its Proper Size"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=41441&em_id=44383.0&JServSessionIdr001=efh7ehivs1.app7a

This might be a surprising perspective to many people. But it really is surprising only to capitalists who simply want to earn a living--perhaps a big living, but a living that is ruled by nothing but proper market ethics and proper ethical treatment of his or her consumers. And I am one of those to whom it is a surprising perspective.

I should not be surprised. I know full well that the market situation we are currently in was caused by zealous, not ethical, pursuit of the dollar. There is a difference. We expect the neighborhood butcher, farm co-op, or shoe store to treat the community with a high standard of ethics. To do otherwise would be to risk negative letters-to-the-editor in the newspaper, and maybe an investigation by the local TV affiliate, if the situation warrants it. Consumers who feel bent out of shape by the way they were treated locally often sue.

But on the larger scale, in the bigger market places, we all know that ethics tend to become fuzzy, or even misplaced once a rule of ethics is broken the first time and not caught. The big markets can usually fend off attacks by angry customers, unless the business is WalMart or something similar. WalMart is expected to be all things to all people; that is how it grew to be so large. Big selection plus big inventory equals low low prices; that is what constitutes "all things to all people" most of the time.

But Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, explained why the reasons for the resurgence of big government are due, "not to any alleged failures of the market, but to a longtime cultural hostility to its moral basis: the selfish pursuit of profit."

We as Americans have lived with the idea of socialism long enough that most of us do not see how its operating principles-if they can be called "principled"--have crept into our nation's politics, policies, and regulations. In the Treasury Department's U.S crazy scheme to save Wall Street but they included this in big, huge piece of socialist nationalism in section 8: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." [emphasis added] [see The Last Nail in the American Fascist Takeover ] more

Excerpt from Anthony Horvath’s
Christian Apologetics Ministry
http://sntjohnny.com/front/one-atheist-admits-im-right-another-responds-to-big-bang-post/364.html
And the Reclassification of Theism
as the Skeptical Position of Naturalism

"It is not very often that you get an admission as clear as the one that was posted on my forum today. I asserted in this post on my blog that at the bottom, most atheistic arguments against the existence of God are based on the ‘presumption of naturalism’ with [missing info in original post.] The atheist on my forum said:

'At the conclusion, you argue that the evidence will show God’s existence if only we give up our assumption that all explanations must be natural. What you fail to give us is any compelling reason why we must abandon that assumption.'"

Unfortunately, Rev. Horvath's critic undercuts his own position by saying he would, in effect, be willing to accept giving up reason. Horvath responds--quite logically--by saying, "The atheist in question says that this assumption can only be abandoned in the face of extremely good reasons, but it should be evident that anyone who believes ‘all explanations must be natural’ is really just throwing up a smokescreen if he now demands ‘reasons’ for thinking otherwise."

Oh, if only we would listen to what we say before we say it. In light of what Horvath said regarding the abandonment of reason for "compelling" reasons, I think the critic would have thought out his words more carefully.

But my favorite atheist philosopher said we must take men at their word. If they say it, then they said it, and we cannot presume to judge that they meant something else. This does not mean we cannot ammend our statement when our contradiction becomes evident.

But unless Horvath's critic writes back, we must assume he does not understand the difference between:

1. A principled deduction of logic that tells him that naturalism is natural, while supernaturalism is---not, by definition, natural; and

2. The decision that it makes no difference whether a thing is "natural" or "not-natural" if one is willing to suspend his rational judgment to decide that the "not-natural" can somehow become the "natural," or at least the "acceptable."

Horvath tells him--and others like him--"If you’re just starting to examine the merits of Christianity and are evaluating skeptical objections, the key here is to understand that all the later objections to things like the resurrection and miracles stem from this prior assumption."

What Horvath himself fails to explain is that naturalism was the prevailing world-view for nearly 1000 years, until Augustine.

There are four goals for the informed naturalist, says physicist and cosmologist Dr. Quentin Smith. "i) retrieve naturalism from its de facto reclassification by medieval philosophers. This is a reclassification (which may have been a result of some other deliberately chosen goal) from its original, accurate, classification in Greco-Roman naturalism, and this reclassification was effected by the medieval philosophers. This reclassification still prevails today." Philo Online http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm more

Reverend "sntjohnny" Horvath Wrote Me an Email:

I Responded

Actually, I only responded to the first two paragraphs, as you will read. He sent the email because of his contention, which I challenged, that followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivism would "inevitably" come around to embracing Christianity.

[Dear Curtis:] "It is only 'inevitable' in certain senses. If you apply the principles you hold dear in Objectivism consistently I believe that you will find that Objectivism does not in fact have the answers while Christianity does.

"Consider. One of the most cherished doctrines of the Objectivist is the rights and freedoms and dignity of each individual human. However, to what degree can this be supported from an atheistic philosophy, especially an atheistic perspective on evolution, which is the prevailing scientific explanation for the rise of humans? Under this framework, a human is nothing more than an animal." [signed Anthony Horvath]

"stjohnny" and I are too familiar with each other to actually bother writing "Dear X," or actually signing it, except that my "automatic" signature is automatic, I do sometimes write "Sincerely," or simply "Curtis," and this time he finished his letter with "Yours."

My (Partial) Response

The atheism and evolution have no bearing on the freedom and dignity of the human individual.

You say according to evolution I ought to conclude man is "nothing more" than an animal. But the denotation of "Man" is that heis the "rational animal." From this perspective we conclude several things:

1. That "Man qua Man" requires the highest degree of rationality a man can discover;
2. That rationality belongs to individuals because there is no "collective" mind;
3. That since rationality belongs to the individual, just as his fingers are his, and his stomach is his, his mind cannot be coerced into doing, being or thinking what it does not want to be. more

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

The Last Nail in the American Fascist Takeover

You Are Losing the Right to Challenge Fed Policy In the Courts of America

Naturalism is a way of thinking, an epistemic "modus operandi." Alone, it is not a strict philosophical system, as is evident by the many variation of naturalism. But the one thing all variations have is the justification for seeing natural laws in all things, and humans are no exception. We too operate by natural law, but natural law for humans is more than following our biological and environmental influences to their ends.

Natural law for humans is following reason and free will to its natural ends, overcoming where necessary the influences of biology and environment, and whatever else may not be of the will and/or of reason.

Economics is necessary to human nature. The first person in history to exchange in barter one thing for another created the field of economics, and it had to happen. It was only a matter of time before money had to be created, because bartering means you must have possession of the item that someone else wants in order to get what he wants. Money, when its standard is accepted, is much easier to carry in your pocket or purse than a chicken.

Capitalism is the economic form proper to naturalism because it requires no coercion, works automatically when left alone, and creates wealth which is distributed within a civilization by the simple means of: "He who has capital exchanges it for material or services owned or provided by someone else, of which material or services he needs or desires, but does not purchase for altruistic ends."

Rational egoism, not altruism, is naturalistic human nature in the field of psychology. Capitalism is the naturalistic psychological desire on the part of egoism to want to be fair in economics. Any form of economics that is not laissez faire is less than the fairness demanded by rational egoism. That automatically defines capitalism as the rational psychology of dealing fairly with other humans in the field of economics.

The following is not fair:
Not only has the U.S Treasury Department "included foreign banks into this crazy scheme [to save Wall Street] but they've also included this gem in section 8:
'Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are
non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.'"

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2008/09/paulson-asking.html

By what Article of the Constitution is the Congress permitted to extend to any function of the Federal Government the unsupervised authority, unreviewable by any Court in the land, to act in the manner of a fascist regime and dictate all the the elements of economics by which an economy must operate?

Bush and Paulson are acting in the manner of fascist economic tyrants. Do you think "fascist" is over-reaching or reactionary? Here is the definition:
"In economics, fascism [is] seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledge[s] the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state." [italics added] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

To that I should add a huge exclamation point, but by adding it I am admitting my dismay that anyone could think such economic "middle ground" "acknowledges the role of private property." It certainly does not. If private property was properly acknowledged, such legislation would not put a gun in the hands of Paulson and his department.

Why do I say the Treasury Department and the Fed would have guns in their hands? Because "the word fascism comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it."

This "bundle of rods with an axe in it" was used to initiate force against other persons, specifically for the purpose of preventing dissention and for bringing the form of "order" that was desired and acceptable to those wielding the fasces.

Mirriam-Webster Online defines fascism as "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control" and indicates "instances of army fascism and brutality."
Still another source says of fascism that it "rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government..." [italics added.] http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

This rejection of individual sovereignty with its inherent rights to act in its own best regard by the just qualities of non-coercive capitalism, this rejection of political pluralism and representative government, is the complete description of the epistemic roots of fascism.
While that description does not cover all the methods used to implement such rejection, the wielding of a fasces in the ancient world is replaced by the gun in our world. Who ever thinks he will operate outside the sphere of total government control is he who will not be prosecuted but summarily fined or jailed without any recourse to the courts.

The only honest appraisal I found of what is going on epistemically was from a left-wing blogger who wrote:
"Even if nothing good comes out of the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion intervention in the mortgage crisis, maybe we can get U.S. economic leaders to stop pretending they're capitalists. Capitalists who expect the government to bail them out when the economic roller-coaster they've been pillaging runs off the track, as it inevitably must, are not capitalists -- they're beggars looking for a handout from the same hand they've been biting for years. That the supposedly laissez-faire Bush administration has to ask Congress to rescue the financial system is a humiliation and a repudiation of decades of Republican Party economics. Where were the market 'corrections' to prevent the meltdown?" [italics added] http://viewsfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com/

The dog-eat-dog lobbyists have finally gotten what they deserved. But the American public deserved better. The American public deserved the protection of the government against such dog-eat-dog lobbying and policies and legislation and court reviews.

Now it seems, if this legislation before Congress is passed with Section 8 intact, [see above] then no court in the land will have the jurisdiction to arbitrate and judge this new economic fascism. The American people will have lost, capitalism will have lost, justice will have lost, and we might as well all go out and get our own fasces and use them against the government officials who use them against us.

As I recall, self-protection is still a right in this country.

For another perspective on this subject, titled:
Welcome to the final stages of the coup...
Please click on the linked title above.

Yesterday's Academy Post Turns Into Today's American Headline: "The Jihad Prevention Act"

Sharia Law in Britannia

"Dear Curtis, Last week we learned that Islamic sharia law is now being followed in numerous cities in Great Britain, enforced by sharia courts. News reports indicate as many as 100 cases have been heard in such courts. Thus continues the tragic saga of Great Britain’s capitulation to militant Islam. The good news is that here in America the threat of sharia law is gradually getting the attention of more and more elected representatives. The latest illustration of this is the report below, carried on the “Muslims Against Sharia” website, that Congressman Tom Tancredo has proposed legislation called the “Jihad Prevention Act.” However, because Congress is trying to wrap up its business for this year, coupled with the fact that it is trying to grapple with the financial sector meltdown, it is a virtual certainty that Congress will not take up Tancredo’s legislation this year. But every time someone like Congressman Tancredo introduces legislation, or Congresswoman Sue Myrick puts forth a plan to “wake up America” to the threat of radical Islam, progress is being made. Progress is being made!" http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/recent-news

Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Measure in Wake of U.K. Certification of Islamic Courts “Jihad Prevention Act” would deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate. According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.” Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense. Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.

“We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”

Publishing Note Re: Reader Comments

I have made the attempt several times to allow the posting of reader comments to this blog. I have followed all the directions set by Google (yes, I've read the directions, several times,) but as of yet it isn't working. If you wish to comment, please email them to the address below. If you know how I can fix this, please email. Thank you.

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®