Hmmmm...a few things here, at first blush:

Malkin writing that anyone "sucks" seems strange given her offensive offense as to Laura Bush's comments about a male horse. I mean, I'm wondering about the source lately, with Malkin.

About Norquist, when I was (temporarily) voting as a Democrat (short lived, since I voted for Reagan, Nixon even, and Bush I and II, but once for Clinton [second term]), I used to find him quite suspect but for different reasons than Malkin describes but now I'm wanting to read even more. He's either working toward a protective revamp of the U.S., for the U.S., or he's working toward a revamp for other reasons. There seems to be a certain amount of smoke there and it should be explored as to cause, although I am lately finding Malkin's anti-GOP threads equally suspect for similar smokey reasons.

Just saying. I'm not above changing my opinions (obviously) but when you get into sandbox-type scurious suggestions about whole voting party "types," it seems oddly off-value.

Posted by: -S- at June 6, 2005 06:15 PM

Rather, "scurilous" (^^).

Posted by: -S- at June 6, 2005 06:16 PM

Al-Arian never should have been allowed into the country, let alone given a job funded by taxpayers.

We should frankly acknowledge the abundant evidence that Islam poses a unique threat both to our lives and our freedom. And we should adjust our immigration and employment laws accordingly.

Specifically, it's high time that we stopped Muslim immigration into the US. If we don't want to be seen as singling out Muslims, we can impose a moratorium on all immigration.

In addition, we should consider reserving government jobs for native-born American citizens, or at least giving them a preference in such hiring. Again, this approach would not single out Muslims.

The point is not that all, or even most, Muslim immigrants wish to do us harm (or to aid or shelter those who do). There's no sure way to know what proportion of Muslims in America present a physical threat. Likewise, there's no sure way to know how many Muslims in America are willing to assimilate to our way of life, including tolerance of other religions and lifestyles, and the separation of religion and state.

To put it another way, there's no way of knowing for sure -- until it's too late.

In the case of a Muslim who turns out to be plotting harm against us, we often won't know until Americans are dead.

In the case of Muslims who have no intention of assimilating and being loyal to the US, we won't know until we have a large bloc of hostile, unassimilated Muslims within our borders.

To find out how Muslims tend to behave as their numbers grow in a Western country, ask the family of Theo Van Gogh. He's the Dutch man who made a film critical of the brutal way many Muslims treat women. Van Gogh was stabbed to death in broad daylight -- in his own country -- for daring to "blaspheme" against Islam.

Sami al-Arian is just one of many Muslims building towards the time when they can do such things in America as well.

Bottom line: there's no benefit to admitting Muslims into America (let alone giving them government positions like al-Arian) that's so crucial as to justify the risks.

Such immigration and employment laws are unfortunate for those Muslims who truly mean no harm and wish to become loyal Americans. But they can blame their fellow Muslims -- not us -- for making such measures necessary.

I care a hell of a lot more about Americans staying alive and free than about "diversity."

Imprison al-Arian in a maximum-security facility and deport him when his sentence is done.

Posted by: John Brendel at June 8, 2005 11:12 AM