Archive for the 'Virgil Goode' Category

Bush sided with Saudis and Pakistan will next President?

December 22, 2007

Will the next president be on the side of Islam, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan? Will he cover up information the government has? Will he release the Senate report on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s links to funding the Taliban before 9-11?

The people are tired of occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq to nation building Muslim countries that are against us. The Muslims have happily killed Christians and cleansed them while our troops are there. The wars and Muslim immigration make no sense.

How long until that is no longer tolerated? PC is insane. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows Virgil Goode was right. How long will the fear to say the obvious continue? Are we so dead inside that we can’t speak up for our existence like Virgil Goode did?

We are in a war for our survival. Third world immigration including Muslim immigration is part of our defeat. Why do we national build in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why do we give aid to the third world? Why do we tolerate their immigration here? How long will we think that dying quietly is better than speaking up? PC is suicide.

==Repetition from previous posts:

==Wright Island Model Sustained Immigration is genetic replacement immigration.

“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

As pointed out in a previous post:

The theorem doesn’t say you get a mixture of old and new. The theorem says you get complete replacement of the old by the new. The old goes extinct. This is pure genetic replacement. It doesn’t matter if there is an intermediate mixture or not. Over time, the initial stock is replaced completely. Promises of a mixture are false.


The root of our denial is that we deny we are a race or ethnic group and have racial or ethnic interests?  We can’t separate them and us?  So we let immigration continue so that we go extinct.  Until we say there is an us, we can’t stop them coming.  Until we stop them coming, we can’t survive.

Until we say there is an us and a them, we can’t say we want them to stop coming.  Until we say we want to stop them coming by legal immigration, we can’t stop them coming by legal immigration.  Until we stop them coming by legal immigration, we can’t survive.

Failing to connect the dots 9-11 immigration

November 23, 2007

The US intelligence community’s national director has said it failed to connect the dots before 9-11.

Rant: Unconnected Dots

Why the FBI failed to stop 9/11

Jeff Taylor | December 2007 Print Edition

For years federal authorities have argued that antiquated laws kept the cops from stopping 9/11. They said the failure to prevent the terrorist attacks demonstrated the need for the PATRIOT Act and every other proposed expansion of the government’s surveillance powers. But in testimony before Congress in September, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell changed tack, saying “9/11 should have and could have been prevented” after all; the authorities simply “didn’t connect the dots.”

Why not now? Terrorism here comes from immigration. The way you stop terrorism here is you stop immigration here. Bush has said that Islam is a Religion of Peace and therefore he needs to take away our civil liberties here. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have said the same thing.

How do we deal with Bliarisms and Bushisms? We have to speak up and tell the truth. We can’t be protected from Muslim immigration unless we say the truth, we want it stopped. If we can’t say it, we can’t get it. If we can’t get it, some of us will die.

That’s what happened before 9-11. The FBI didn’t connect the dots, and 3000 people died in America. Not connecting the dots is fatal. Muslim immigrants came here to kill us. We need to stop Muslim immigration. This is a war that started in 622 A.D. when Muhammad went to Medina. Within 2 years he was killing Jewish men and taking their women and children as slaves. Its time to wake up to what we are fighting. Its the Religion of Attack.

On 9-11, they said America was under attack. It still is. The West still is. Time to connect the dots. Islam immigration immolation of the West. Connect the dots. Stop all immigration. Call your rep. They won’t stop only Muslim immigration so the only way to stop Muslim immigration is to ask them to stop all legal immigration.

Muslims come by legal immigration, asylum, family reunification, H-1B, guest worker, diversity visa, etc. Ask your rep or senator to stop all legal immigration and list all the categories.

Bush says we have to give up our civil liberties to keep our security and Muslim immigration. In fact, we get neither. The only way to have our security and our civil liberties is to stop all Muslim immigration. The only way to stop all legal Muslim immigration is to stop all legal immigration. Free fax to your senator and congressman to stop legal immigration:

Remember, amnesty is just another form of legal immigration. America is a terrible thing to waste. Virgil Goode was right, stop all Muslim immigration. But the establishment said, its stop all legal immigration or none, its “racist” to stop only Muslim immigration. So we must ask them to stop all legal immigration. That is what they told us to ask for.

Tom Tancredo asked for a total moratorium and was not attacked for that. Tancredo was attacked for his ad on Muslims and his statement to nuke Mecca if they attacked us here again. The establishment said they wouldn’t strike back if they attacked us here. They heard that. That means we have to stop them coming here. The establishment has said, its all legal immigration that is stopped or none.

The only way to stop terrorist immigration is to stop Muslim immigration. The only way to stop Muslim immigration is to stop all legal immigration. The only way to stop all legal immigration is to tell your senator and congressman to stop all legal immigration and vote for candidates who advocate a moratorium like Tom Tancredo.

Thomas Jefferson Adams Koran 1786 Adja at LOC

January 22, 2007

LOC Original Quote Source

Page 413 Image from Cornell Library

The ambassador replied: It was writ-
ten in their Koran, that all nations
which had not acknowledged the
Prophet were sinners, whom it was
the right and duty of the faithful to
plunder and enslave; and that every
mussulman who was slain in this war-
fare was sure to go to paradise.

Joshua London Victory at Tripoli

At National Review

December 16, 2005, 9:55 a.m.
America’s Earliest Terrorists
Lessons from America’s first war against Islamic terror.

By Joshua E. London


Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Virgil Goode at TPMMuckraker

LOC Index


LOC Original Quote Source

View page 405

Ye~erson American Alinisler in France.


THE United States has contributed
to the diplomatic circles of the Old
World some incongruous members, he-
roes of the caucus and the stump, not
versed in the lore of courts, and un-
skilled in drawing-room arts. So,at
least, we are occasionally told by per-
sons who think it a prettier thing to
bow to a lady than to an audience, and
nobler to chat agreeably at dinner than
to discourse acceptably to a multitude.
Perhaps we shall do better in the diplo-
matic way by and by, when we have our
Civil Service College (to match West
Point and Annapolis) in which young
men will be especially trained for the
higher walks of public life. Hitherto,
our diplomatists have won their signal
successes simply by being good citi-
zens. We have never had a Talleyrand,
nor one of the Talleyrand kind (though
we came near it when Aaron Burr was
pressed for a foreign appointment), and
no American has ever been sent to lie
abroad for his countrys good. We
have had, however, besides a large
number of respectable ministers in the
ordinary way, three whose opportunity
was, at once, immense and unique,
Franklin, Jefferson, and Washburne,
and each of these proved equal to his
It is not as a record of diplomatic
service that Jeffersons five years~ resi-
dence in France is specially important
to us. France and America were like
lovers then, and it is not difficult to ne-
gotiate between lovers. His master in
the diplomatic art was the greatest
master of it that ever lived, Benja-
min Franklins excellence being, that
heconducted the intercourse of nations
on the principles which control men of
honor and good feeling in their private
business, who neither take, nor wish,
nor will have an unjust advantage, and
look at a point in dispute with their an-
tagonists eves as well as their own,
never insensible to his difficulties and
Ids scruples. It is what France did to
Jefferson that makes his long residence
there historically important; because
the mind he carried home entered at
once into the forming character of a
young nation, and became a part of it
forever. All these millions of people,
whom we call fellow-citizens, are more
or less different in their character and
feelings from what they would have
been, if; in the distribution of diplo-
matic offices in 1785, Congress had
sent Jefferson to London instead of
Paris, and appointed John Adams to
Paris instead of London.
At first, he had the usual embarrass-
ments of American ministers he
could read, but not speak the French
language, and he was sorely puzzled
how to arrange his style of living so as
not to go beyond his nine thousand
dollars a year. The language was a
difficulty which diminished every hour,
though he never trusted himself to
write French on any matter of conse-
quence; but the art of living, in the
style of a plenipotentiary, upon the al-
lowance fixed by Congress, remained
difficult to the end. Nor could he,
during the first years, draw much reve-
nue from Virginia. He left behind him
there so long a list of debts (the re-
sult of the losses and desolations of
the war), that the proceeds of two crops,
and the arrears of his salary as gov-
ernor voted by the legislature, only
sufficed to satisfy the most urgent of
A Virginia estate was a poor thing
indeed in the absence of the master;
and, unhappily, the founders of the
government of the United States, in
arranging salaries, made no allowance
for the American fact, that the mere
absence of a man from home usually
lessens his income and increases his
expenditure. Even Franklin took it
for granted that we should always have
among us men of leisure~ most of whom

View page 406

406 .?/efferson Americvz Minister in France. [October,

would be delighted to serve the public
for nothing. Who, indeed, could have
foreseen a state of things, such as we
see around us now, when the richer a
man is the harder he works, and when,
in a flourishing city of a hundred thou-
sand inhabitants, not one man of lei-
sure can be found, nor one man of
ability who can afford~~ to go to the
legislature ? Jefferson, Adams, and
perhaps I may say, most of the public
men of the country, have suffered
agonies of embarrassment from the
failure of the first Congresses to adopt
the true republican principle of paying
for all service done the public at the
rate which the requisite quality of ser-
vice commands in the market. The
only great error, perhaps, of Washing-
tons career was his aristocratic dis-
dain of taking fair wages for his work,
an error which most of his succes-
sors and many of their most valued min-
isters have rued in silent bitterness.
Nay, he rued it himself. What anxious
hours Washington himself passed from
the fact that there were so few compe-
tent statesmen in the country who
chanced to be rich enough to live in
Philadelphia on the salary of a Secre-
tary of State!
Jefferson was somewhat longer than
usual in getting used to what he called
the gloomy and damp climate of
Paris, such a contrast to the warmth,
purity, and splendor of the climate of his
mountain home. We find him, too, still
mourning his lost wife, and writing to
his old friend Page, that his principal
happiness was now in the retrospect of
life. Moreover, the condition of hu-
man nature in Europe astonished and
shocked him beyond measure. He was
not prepared for it; he could not get
hardened to it. While experiencing all
those art raptures which we should pre-
sume he would, keenly enjoying the
music of Paris above all, and the archi-
tecture only less, falling in love with a
statue here and an edifice there, still,
he could not become reconciled to the
hideous terms on which most of the
people of France held their lives. At
his own pleasant and not inelegant
abode , gathered most that was brilliant,
amiable, or illustrious in Paris. Who
so popular as the minister of our dear
allies across the sea, the successor of
Franklin, the friend of Lafayette, the
man of science, the man of feeling, the
scholar and musical amateur reared in
the wilderness? He liked the French,
too, exceedingly. He liked their man-
ners, their habits, their tastes, and even
their food. He was glad to live in a
community, ~vhere, as he said, a man
might pass a life without encountering
a single rudeness, and where people
enjoyed social pleasures without eating
like pigs and drinking like Indians.
But none of these things could ever
deaden his heart to the needless misery
of man in France. Read his own
First, to his young friend and pupil,
James Monroe, in June, 1785, when he
had been ten months in Paris: The
pleasure of the trip [to Europe] will be
less than you expect, but the utility
greater. It will make you adore your
own country, its soil, its climate, its
equality, liberty, laws, people, and man-
ners. My God! how little do my
countrymen know what precious bless-
ings they are in possession of, and
which no other people on earth enjoy!
I confess I had no idea of it myself.
To Mrs. Trist, in August, x785 : It
is difficult to conceive how so good a
people, with so good a king, so well-
disposed rulers in general, so genial a
climate, so fertile a soil, should beren-
dered so ineffectual for producing hu-
man happiness by one single curse,
that of a bad form of government. But
it is a fact, in spite of the mildness of
their governors, the people are ground
to powder by the vices of the form of
government. Of twenty millions of
people supposed to be in France, I am
of opinion there are nineteen millions
more wretched, more accursed in every
circumstance of human existence, than
the most conspicuously wretched indi-
vidual of the whole United States.
To an Italian friend in Virginia,
September, 1785 : Behold me, at
length, on the vaunted scene of Eu-
View page 407

1872.] ~Yfferson Arnerica;z Millister in France.
rope! You are, perhaps, curious to
know how it has struck a savage of the
mountains of America. Not advan-
tageously, I assure you. I find the
general fate of mankind here most de-
plorable. The truth of Voltaires ob-
servation offers itself perpetually, that
every man here must be either the
hammer or the anvil. It is a true pic-
ture of that country to which they say
we shall pass hereafter, and where we
are to see God and his angels in splen-
dor, and cro~vds of the damned tram-
pled under their feet.
To George Wythe, of Virginia, in
August, 1786: If anybody thinks that
kings, nobles, or prie~ts are good con-
servators of the public happiness, send
him here. It is the best school in the
universe to cure him of that folly. He
will see here, with his own eyes, that
these descriptions of men are an aban-
doned conspiracy against the happiness
of the people. Preach, my dear sir, a
crusade against ignorance establish
and improve the law for educating the
common people. Let our countrymen
know, that the people Mone can protect
us against these evils, and that the tax
which. will be paid for this purpose is
not more than the thousandth part of
what will be paid to kings, priests, and
nobles, who will rise up among us if
we leave the people in ignorance.
To General Washington, in Novem-
ber, 1786: To know the mass of evil
which flows from this fatal source [an
hereditary aristocracy], a person must
be in France; he must see the finest
soil, the finest climate, and the most
compact state, the most benevolent
character of people, and every earthly
advantage combined, insufficient to pre-
vent this sc6urge from rendering ex-
istence a curse to twenty-four out of
twenty-five parts of the inhabitants of
this country.
To James Madison, in January, 1787:
To have an idea of the curse of ex-
istence under a government of force,
it must be seen. It is a government
of wolves over sheep.
To another American friend, in Au-
gust, 1787: If all the evils which can

arise among us from the republican
form of government, from this day to
the day of judgment, could he put into
scale against what this country suffers
from its monarchical form in a week,
or England in a month, the latter would
preponderate. No race of kings has
ever presented above one man of com-
mon sense in twenty generations. The
best they can do is to leave things to
their ministers ; and what are their
ministers but a committee badly
To Governor Rutledge of South
Carolina, August, 1787: The Euro-
pean are governments of kites over
To another American friend, in Feb-
ruary, 1788 : Ehe long-expected edict
at length appears. It is an acknowl-
edgment (hitherto withheld by the
laws) that Protestants can beget chil-
dren, and that they can die, and be
offensive unless buried. It does not
give them perrpission to think, to speak,
or to worship. It enumerates the hu-
miliations to which they shall remain
subject, and the burthens to which
they shall continue to be unjustly ex-
posed. What are we to think of the
condition of the human mind in a coun-
try, where such a wretched thing as
this has thrown the state into convul-
sions, and how must we bless our own
situation in a country, the most illiter-
ate peasant of which is a Solon, com-
pared with the authors of this law.
Our countrymen do not know their
own superiority.

Such were the feelings with which
he contemplated the condition of the
French people. But he was in a situ-
ation to know, also, how far the
great in France were really benefited.
by the degradation of their fellow-citi-
zens. Their situation was dazzlino~~
but there was, .he thought, no class in
America who were not happier than
they. Intrigues of love absorbed the
younger, intrigues of ambition the
elder. Conjugal fidelity being regarded
as something provincialand ridiculous,
there was no such thing known among
View page 408

408 .5~etferso;z Amcriccvz Illinisler in F,-cz;zce. [October,

them as that tranquil, permanent fe~
licity with which domestic society in
America blesses most of its inhabitants,
leaving them free to follow steadily
those pursuits which health and rea-
son approve, and rendering truly deli-
cious the intervals of those pursuits.
Such sentiments as these were in
vogue at the time, even among the
ruling class. Beaumarchaiss Marriage
of Figaro was in its first run when
Jefferson reached Paris. Doubtless,
he listened to the barbers soliloquy in
the fifth act (a stump speech ~ Za mode
de Paris), the longest soliloquy in a
modern comedy, in which Beaumar-
chais, as we should say, arraigns the
administration. I ~ya s thought of
for a government appointment, says
poor Figaro, but, unfortunately, I
was fit for it: an arithmetician was
wanted; a dancer got it. Jefferson
rarely mentions the theatre in his
French letters ; but the theatre in Paris
is like dinner, too familiar a matter to
get upon paper. Beaumarchais himself
he knew but too well, for the brilliant
dramatist was a claimant of sundry
millions from the honorable Congress
for stores furnished during the war
which puzzled and perplexed every
minister of the United States from
Franklin to Rives.
Our plenipotentiary was one of the
most laborious of men during his resi-
dence in Europe. He had need of all
his singular talent for industry. The
whole of a long morning he usually
spent in his office hard at work; and,
sometimes, as his daughter reports,
when he was particularly pressed, he
would take his papers and retire to a
monastery near Paris, in which he
hired an apartment, and remain there
for a week or two, all the world shut
out, till his task was done. In the
afternoon, he walked seven miles into
the country and back again; and in
the evening, music, art, science, and
society claimed him by turns. I must
endeavor, in a few words, to indicate
the nature and objects of such inces
cial duties. The two continents were
then as far apart as America is now
from Australia. It took Jefferson from
fourteen to twenty weeks to get an
answer from home; and if his letters
missed the monthly packet, there was
usually no other opportunity till the
next. It was ~part of his duty as min-
ister to send to Mr. Jay, Secretary for
the foreign affairs of Congress, not
only a regular letter of public news,
but files of the best newspapers. He
did, in fact, the duty of Own Corre-
spondent, as well as that of plenipo-
tentiary; with much that is now done
by consuls and commercial agents.
As it was then a part of the system of
governments in Europe to open letters
intrusted to the mail, important letters
had to be written in cipher; which was
a serious addition to the labor of all
official persons. An incident of Mr.
Jeffersons second year serves to show
at once the remoteness of America
from Europe, the difficulty of getting
information from one continent to
another, and th9 variety of employ-
ments which then fell to the lot of the
American minister. He received a
letter making inquiry concerning a
young man named Abraham Albert
Alphonso Gallatin, who had emigrated
from Switzerland to America six years
before, and of whose massacre and scalp-
ing by the Indians a report had lately
reached his friends in Geneva. It was
to the American minister that the dis-
tressed family (one of the most respec-
table in Switzerland) applied for infor-
mation concerning the truth of the
report. In case this young man had
fallen a victim to the savages, Mr. Jef-
ferson was requested to procure a certifi-
cate of his death and a copy of his ~vill.
It was in this strange way that Thomas
Jefferson first obtained knowledge of the
Albert Gallatin whom he was destined
to appoint Secretary of the Treasury.
France and America, I say, were
like lovers then. And yet, in one re-
spect, the new minister found French-
men disappointed with the results of
sant toil. the alliance between the two countries.
And, first, as to his public and offi- The moment the war closed, commerce
View page 409


had resumed its old channel; so that
the new flag of stars and stripes, a
familiar object on the Thames, was
rarely seen in a port of France. Why
is this ? Mr. Jefferson was frequently
asked. Does friendship count for noth-
ing in trade? Is this the return France
had a right to expect from America?
Do Americans prefer their enemies to
their friends? The American minis-
ter made it his particular business, first,
to explain the true reason of this state
of things, and, then, to apply the only
remedy. In other words, he made
himself, both in society and in the au-
dience room of the Count de Vergennes,
an apostle of free-trade.
The spell of the protective system,
in 1785, had been broken in England,
hut not in France. Jefferson showed
the Count de Vergennes that it was
the measure of freedom of trade which
British merchants enjoyed that gave
them the cream of the worlds com-
merce. He told the Count (an excel-
lent man of business and an honorable
gentleman, but as ignorant as a king
of political economy) that if national
preferences could weigh with merchants,
the whole commerce of America would
forsake England and come to France.
But, said he, in substance, our mer-
chants cannot buy in France, because
you will not let them sell in France.
One day, he ~vent over the whole list
of American products, and explained
the particular restriction or system of
restrictions, which rendered it impossi-
ble for American merchants to sell it
in France at a profit. Indigo, France
had tropical islands, the planters of
which she must protect. Tobacco,
O heavens! in what a coil and tangle
of protection was that fragrant weed!
First~ the king had the absolute mo-
nopoly of the sale of it. Secondly, the
king had farmed the sale to some
great noblemen; who, in turn, had
sub-let the right to men of business.
These gentlemen had concluded a con-
tract with Robert Morris of Philadel-
phia, giving him an absolute monopoly
of the importation for three years.
Morris was to s~nd to France twenty
Yefferson American Minister in France. 409

thousand hogsheads a year at a fixed
price, and no other creature ~n earth
could lawfully send a pound of tobacco
to France.
The learned reader perceives that
there was a tobacco Ring in 1785,
which included king, noble men, French
merchants, and Mr. Jeffersons friend,
Robert Morris. When, in the course
of this enumeration, he came to the arti-
cle of tobacco, and explained the mode
in which it was protected, the Count
remarked that the king received so
large a revenue from tobacco, that it
could not be renounced. I told him,
as Mr. Jefferson relates, that we did
not wish it to be renounced, or even
lessened, but only that the monojoly
should be put down; that this might
be effected in the simplest manner by
obliging the importer to pay, on en-
trance, a duty equal to what the king
now received, or to deposit his tobacco
in the kings warehouses till it was
paid, and then permitting a free sale of
it. A/a foil said the Count, that
is a good idea; we must think of it.
They did think of it. Mr. Jefferson
kept them thinking during the whole of
his residence in Paris. In many letters
and in conversation, vivid with his own
clear conviction, and warm with his
earnest purpose to serve both coun-
tries, and man through them, he ex-
pounded the principles of free-trade.
Each of our nations, he said, has
exactly to spare the articles which the
other wants. We have a surplus of
rice, tobacco, furs, peltry, potash, lamp
oils, timber, which France wants; she
has a surplus of wines, brandies, escu-
lent oils, fruits, manufactures of all
kinds, which we want. The govern-
ments have nothing to do but not to
hinder their merchants from making
the exchange.
To the theory of free-trade every
thinking man, of course, assented. But
when it came to practice, he generally
found (as free-traders now do) that pri-
vate interest was too powerful for him.
It was in France very much as it was
in Portugal. After negotiating for
years with the Portuguese minister for
View page 410

410 Yefferson A mcrican Minister in France [October,

the free admission of American pro-
ducts, Jefferson succeeded in getting
his treaty signed and sent to Lisbon for
ratification. The astute old Portuguese
ambassador predicted its rejection.
Some great lords of the court, said
he to Mr. Jefferson, derive an impor-
tant part of their revenue from their
interest in the flour – mills near the
capital ; which the admission of Amer-
ican flour will shut up. They will pre-
vail upon the king to reject it. And
so it proved. Jefferson, however, was
not a man to prefer no bread to half a
loaf. He did really succeed in France,
after twelve months hard work and
vigilant attention, aided at every turn
by the Marquis de Lafayette, whose
zeal, to serve his other country across
the ocean knew no diminution while
he lived, in obtaining some few crusts
of free-trade for the merchants of
America; which had an important
effect in nourishing the infant com-
merce between the two countries. Nor
did he rest content with them. He
could not break the Morris contract,
nor even wish it broken; but, aided
by Lafayettes potent influence, he ob-
tained from the Ministry an engage-
ment that no contract of the same na-
ture should ever again be permitted.
To the last month of his stay in Europe,
we find, in his voluminous correspond-
ence, that he still strove to loosen what
he was accust~~med to call the shac-
kles upon trade.
His efforts in behalf of free-trade in
tobacco exposed him to the enmity of
Robert Morris and his kindred, one of
the most powerful circles in the United
States, including Gouverneur Morris,
as able and honorable an aristocrat as
ever stood by his order,a man of
Bismarckian acuteness, candor, integ-
rity, and humor. In writing of this
matter, in confidence, to James iVIon-
roe, Jefferson held this language: I
have done what was right, and I will
not so far wound my privilege of doing
that without regard to any mans inter-
est, as to enter into any explanations
of this paragraph with Robert Morris.
Yet I esteem him highly, and suppose
that hitherto he had esteemed me.
The paragraph to which he alludes
was one in a letter of the French min-
ister of finance, in which there was an
expression implying that Mr. Jefferson
had recommended the annulling of the
Morris Contract. This he had not
done. On th~ contrary, he had main-
tained that to annul it would be unjust.
But he deemed it unbecoming in him
as a public man to so much as correct
this misapprehension.
The reader, perhaps, has supposed
that the evils resulting from tariff-
tinkering, are peculiar to the United
States. Mr. Jefferson knew better.
As often as he succeeded in getting a
restriction upon trade loosened a little,
an injured Interest cried out; and did
not always cry in vain. In 1788, he
obtained a revisal of the tariff in favor
of American products, which admitted
American whale oil (before prohib-
ited) at a duty of ten dollars a ton.
This was a vast boon to Yankee whal-
ers. But an existing treaty between
France and England obliged France
to admit English oil on the terms of
the most favored nation. At once,
the English oils flowed in, over-
stocked the market, and lowered the
price to such a point that the French
fishermen and sealmen could not live.
An outcry arose, which the French
Ministry could not disregard. Then it
was proposed to exclude all European
oils which would not infringe the Brit-
ish treaty; and this idea Jefferson, #4
free-trader as he was, encouraged with
patriotic inconsistency, because, as he
says, it would give to the French and
American fisheries a monopoly of the
French market. The arr~t was drawn
up ministers were assembled; and in
a moment more it would have been
passed, to the enriching of Nantucket
and the great advantage of all the New
England coast. Just then, a minister
proposed to strike out the word Euro-
pean, which would make the measure
still more satisfactory to French oil-
men. The amendment was agree dto;
the arreit was signed; and, behold,
Nantucket excluded!
View page 411


As soon as Jefferson heard of this
disaster, he put forth all his energies
in getting the arr~/ amended. Not
content with verbal and written remon-
strance, he took a leaf from Dr. Frank-
lins book, and caused a small treatise
upon the subject to be printed to entice
them to read it, particularly the new
minister, M. Neckar, who, minister as
he was, had some principles of econ-
omy, and will enter into calculations.
He succeeded in his object, and soon
had the pleasure of sending to Nan-
tucket, through Mr. Adams, a notifi-
cation that the whalemen might put
to sea in full confidence of being al-
lowed to sell their oil in French ports
on profitable terms. He testit~ed to
the generous aid he had had in this
business from Lafayette: He has
paid the closest attention to it, and
combated for us with the zeal of a
Other curious incidents of his five
years war against the Protective Sys-
tem press for mention ; but, really, one
suffices as well as a thousand. It is
always the same story; the interests
of men against the rights of man,
temporary and local advantage opposed
to the permanent interest of the human
race, a shrinking from a fair, open
contest, and compelling your adversary
to go into the ring with one hand tied
behind him. Nevertheless, such is
the nature of man, that the progress
from restriction to freedom, whether in
politics, religion, or trade, must be slow
in order to be sure. It is huir~an to cry
Great is Diana of the Ephesians
when you live by making images of the
chaste goddess. Even Jefferson, a free-
trader by the constitution of his mind,
was not so very ill-content with a mo-
nopoly which shut English whalemen
out of the ports of France, and let his
own countrymen in. The principle
was wrong, but he could bear it in this
instance. It required many years of
pig-headed outrage to kill his proud
and yearning love for the land of his
ancestors, but the thing was done at
last with a completeness that left noth-
ing to be desired.
Among the powers with which the
commissioners of the United States
endeavored to negotiate treaties of
amity and commerce on sublime
Christian principles, were Tunis, Al-
giers, Tripoli, and the high, glorious,
mighty, and most noble King, Prince,
and Emperor of Morocco. Before
Mr. Jefferson had held the post of
plenipotentiary many weeks, he was
reminded, most painfully, that those
powers were not yet, perhaps, quite
prepared to conduct their foreign affairs
in the lofty style proposed. A rumor
ran over Europe, that Dr. Franklin, on
his voyage to America, had been cap-
tured by the Algerines and carried to
Algiers; where, being held for ransom,
he bore his captivity with the cheerful-
ness and dignity that might have been
expected of him. Nor was such an
event impossible, nor even improbable.
The packets plying between Havre.and
New York were not considered safe
from the Algerine corsairs in 1785.
Nothing afloat was safe from them un-
less defended by superior guns, or pro-
tected by an annual subsidy. Among
the curious bits of information which
Jefferson contrived to send to Mr. Jay,
was a list of the presents made by the
Dutch, in 1784, to the aforesaid King,
Prince, and Emperor of Morocco. The
Dutch, we should infer from this cata-
logue, supplied the Emperor with the
n~eans of preying upon the commerce
of the world; for it consists of items
like these : 69 masts, 30 cables, 267
pieces of cordage, 70 cannon, 2! an-
chors, 285 pieces of sail-cloth, 1450
pulleys, ~i chests of tools, 12 quad-
rants, 12 compasses, 26 hour-glasses,
27 sea-charts, ~o dozen sail. needles, 24
tons of pitch ; besides such extraor-
dinary presents as 2 pieces of scarlet
cloth, 2 of green cloth, 280 loaves of
sugar, one chest of tea, 24 china punch-
bowls, 50 pieces of muslin, 3 clocks,
and one very large watch. He
learned, too, that Spain had recently
stooped to buy a peace from one of
these piratical powers at a cost of six
hundred thousand dollars.
It was in the destiny of Mr. Jeffer
Y~effcrxn Arnerica;z iJIi;zister in France.
View page 412

412 5efferson American Minister in France. [October –

son, at a later time, to extort a peace
from these pirates in another way, and,
in fact, to originate the system that rid
the seas of them forever. But, at
present, the country which he repre-
sented was not strong enough to de-
part from the established system of
purchase. The United States was
a gainer even by the treaty for which
Spain had paid so high a price, for
Spain was then in close alliance with
the republic which had humbled the
great enemy of the House of Bourbon.
In the spring of 1785 came news that
the American brig Betsy had been cap-
tured and taken to Morocco, where the
crew were held for ransom. It was the
good offices of Spain that induced the
King, Prince, and Emperor of Morocco
to make a present to the American
minister at Cadiz of the liberty of the
Betsys crew. But when Mr. Car-
michael waited on the Spanish ambas-
sador to thank him, in the best Span-
ish he could muster, for the friendly
act of the king, he was given to under-
stand that, unless the United States
sent an envoy to Morocco with pres-
ents for the Emperor, no more crews
would be released except on the usual
terms. Mr. Carmichael notified Mr.
Jefferson of these events, and added
that he feared further depredations
from the Algerines. Thirteen prizes
had recently been brought in by them;
chiefly Portuguese, he tI~ought. The
Americans, I hope, are too much fright-
ened already, said he, to venture
any vessels this way, especially during
the summer. And they ran some risk
even in the more northern latitudes.
A month later, Mr. Jefferson re-
ceived a doleful letter from three
American captains in Algiers, which
brought the subject home to him most
forcibly: We, the subjects of the
United States of America, having
the misfortune of being captured off
the. coast of Portugal, the 24th and
30th of July, by the Algerines, and
brou~,ht into this port, where we are
become slaves, and sent to the work-
houses, our sufferings are beyond our
expressing, or your conception
being stripped of all our clothes, and
nothing to exist on but two small cakes
of bread per day, without any other
necessaries of life. But the captains
had found a friend: Charles Logie,
Esq., British Consul, seeing our dis-
tressed situation, has taken us three
masters of vessels out of the work-
house, and has given security for us to
the Dey of Algiers, King of Cruelties.
The sailors, however, remained in the
workhouses, where they would certain-
ly starve, the captains thought, if Mr.
Jefferson could not at once prevail
upon Congress to grant them relief.
In writing this letter, the three cap-
tains provided Mr. Jefferson with seven
years trouble. During all the remain-
der of his residence at Paris, and years
after his return home, one of his chief
employments was to procure the deliv-
erance of those unfortunate prisoners
from captivity. After making some
provision for their maintenance, he ex-
plained to Congress the necessity of
treating with the pirates as the Span-
iards had done, money in hand. He
was authorized to give twenty thou-
sand dollars to the High and Mighty
Prince and Emperor of Morocco, and
the same sum to the King of Cruelties,
for a treaty of peace. Inadequate as
these sums were, they seemed stupen-
dous to a Congress distressed with the
debt of the Revolution, fearing to learn
by every arrival that their credit was
gone in Europe, through the failure of
their agents to effect a new loan. Jef-
ferson and Adams took the liberty of
doubling the price for a treaty with
Algiers; offering forty thousand dol-
lars for a treaty and the twenty prison-
ers. They felt that this was assuming
a responsibility which nothing could
justify but the emergency of the case.
The motives which led to it, wrote
Jefferson to Mr. Jay, must be found
in the feelings of the human heart, in a
partiality for those sufferers who are of
our own country, and in the obligations
of every government to yield protec-
tion to their citizens as the considera-
tion for their obedience. He assured
the secretary that it would be a corn-
View page 413

1872.] Yqft~erson America;: Zilinister in France.
fort to know that Congress did not dis-
approve this step. He received that
comfort in due time; but the forty
thousand dollars did not get the treaty,
nor bring home the captives. The
agents whom he despatched returned
with the report that upon such terms
no business could be done.
And so the affair drew on. In the
spring of 1786, Mr. Jefferson upon an
intimation received from Mr. Adams,
hurried over to London to confer with
the ambassador of Tripoli upon the
matter; supposing that whatever bar-
gain they might make with Tripoli
would be a guide in their negotiations
with Algiers and Morocco. The two
Americans met the ambassador, and
had a conversation with him which one
would think more suitable to A. D. 1100
than 1786. The first question discussed
b!etween them was, whether it were bet-
ter for the United States to buy a tem-
porary peace by annual payments, or a
permanent peace by what our English
friends elegantly style a lump sum.
The ambassador was much in favor of
a permanent peace. Any stipulated
annual sum, he said, might cease to
content his country, and an increased
demand might bring on a war, which
wouid interrupt the payments, and give
new cause of difference. It would be
much cheaper in the long run, he as-
sured them, for the United States to
come down handsomely at once and
make an end of the business.
That question having been duly con-
sidered, the Americans were ready to
listen to the terms; which were these
for a treaty of peace with Tripoli, to
last one year, with privilege of renewal,
twelve thousand five hundred guineas
to the government, and one thousand
two hundred and fifty guineas to the
a~nbassador; for a permanent peace,
thirty thousand g~iineas to the gov-
ernment, and three thousand guineas
to the ambassador; cash down on
receipt of signed treaty. N. B. Mer-
chandise not taken. On the same
terms, the ambassador assured them,
a peace could be had with Tunis; but
with regard to Algiers and Morocco,

he could not undertake to promise
anything. Peace with the four pirati-
cal powers, then, would cost Congress
at least six hundred and sixty thou-
sand dollars. If the affair had not
involved the life and liberty of coun-
trymen, the American commissioners
might have laughed at the dispropor-
tion between the sums they were em-
powered to offer and those demanded.
Disguising their feelings as best they
could, they took the liberty to make
some inquiries concerning the ground
of the ~iretensions to make war upon
nations who had done them no injury.
The ambassador replied: It was writ-
ten in their Koran, that all nations
which had not acknowledged the
Prophet were sinners, whom it was
the right and duty of the faithful to
plunder and enslave; and that every
mussulman who was slain in this war-
fare was sure to go to paradise. He
said, also, that the man who was the
first to board a vessel had one slave
over and above his share, and that
when they sprang to the deck of an
enemys ship, every sailor held a dag-
ger in each hand and a third in his
mouth; which usually struck such ter-
ror into the foe that they cried out for
quarter at once. It was the opinion of
this enlightened public functionary that
the Devil aided his countrymen in
these expeditions, for they were almost
always succe.sssful.
It is difficult for us to realize only
eighty-six years after this conv~rsation,
that it could ever have been held;
still less that the American commis-
sioners should have seriously reported
it to Mr. Jay, with an offer of their
best services in trying to borrow the
money in Holland or elsewhere, and in
concluding the several bargains for
peace with the four powers ; least of ~
all, that Mr. Jay should have submitted
the offers of the ambassador to Con-
gress. Congress, in their turn, referred
the matter back to Mr. Jay for his
opinion; which he gave with elabora-
tion and exactness. The substance of
his report was this : We cannot raise
the money, and it would be an injury
View page 414

Yreffcrson A meri~an Minister in France. LOctober,

to our credit to attempt to do so and
not succeed.
Mr. Jefferson was obliged, therefore,
to confine his efforts to the mere de-
liverance of the captives by ransom.
This, too, was a matter demanding the
most delicate and cautious handling;
for the price of a captive was regulated
like professional fees, according to the
wealth of the parties interested. Let
those professional pirates but suppose
a government concerned in a slaves
ransom, and the price ran up the scale
to a height most alarming. Jefferson
was obliged to conceal from every one,
and especially from the prisoners, that
he had any authority to treat for their
release; a course that brought upon
him, a kind of censure hard to bear in-
deed. While he was exerting every
faculty in behalf of the captives, he
~vould receive from thenr cruel let-
ters, as he termed them, accusing
him, not merely of neglecting their in-
terests, but of disobeying the positive
orders of Congress to negotiate their
He availed himself, at length, of the
services of an order of monks called
The Mathurins, instituted for the pur-
pose of begging alms for the ransom of
Christian captives held to servitude
among the Infidels. Agents of theirs
constantly lived in the Barbary States,
searching out captives, and driving
hard bargains in their purchase. As it
~vas known that the Mathurins could
ransom cheaper than any other agency,
they were frequently employed by gov-
ernments and by families in procuring
the deliverance of captives. The chief
of the order received Mr. Jefferson
with the utmost benignity, and won his
favorable regard by making no allusion
to the religious heresy of the American
captives. He offered to undertake the
purchase, provided the most profound
secrecy were observed, and he thought
the twenty captives would cost Con-
gress ten thousand dollars. Congress
authorized the expenditure. But that
was the time when it overtaxed the
credit of the United States even to
subsist their half a dozen representa
tives in Europe. The moment I
have the money, Mr. Jefferson was
obliged to write, the business shall
be set in motion. But the money was
long in coming. A newgovernment
was forming at Philadelphia. All was
embarrassmefit in the finances and
confusion in the minds of the transi-
tory administration. The poor cap-
tives lingered in slavery year after year,
dependant for daily sustenanc~, for
months at a time, on advances made
by the Spanish ambassador. As late
as 1793, we still find Mr. Jefferson
busied about the same, prisoners in
While doing what he could for the
relief and protection of his own coun-
trymen, he set on foot a nobler scheme
for delivering the vessels of all the mar-
itime nations from the risk of capture
by these pirates. He drew up a plan,
which he submitted to the Diplomatic
Corps at Versailles, for keeping a joint
fleet of six frigates and six smaller ves-
sels in commission, one half of which
should be always cruising against the
corsairs, waging active war, until the
four Barbary States were willing to
conclude treaties of peace without sub-
sidy or price. Portugal, Naples, the
two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Den mark,
and Sweden, all avowed a willing-
ness to share in the enterprise, pro-
vided France offered no opposition.
Having satisfied the ambassadors on
this point, he felt sure of success if
Congress would authorize him to make
the proposition as from them, and to
supl)ort it by undertaking to contribute
and maintain one of the frigates. But
the power of the Congress of the old
Confederacy, never sufficient, was now
waning fast. What could it ever do
but recommend the States to pay their
share of public expenses? And the
recommendations of *is nature, as
Jefferson remarked, were now so open-
ly neglected by the States, that Con-
gress declined an engagement which
they were conscious they could not
fulfil with punctuality. It was an ex-
cellent scheme. Jefferson had drawn
it up in great detail~ and with so much
View page 415

1872.] Yeffcrson American Minister in France. 415

forethought and good sense, that it
looks on paper as though it might have
answered the purpose.
It fell to the lot of Jefferson to nego-
tiate and sign a convention between
France and the United States which
regulated the consular services of both
nations. Does the reader happen to
know what despotic powers a consul
exercised formerly? He was a terrible
being. He was invested with much of
the sacredness and more than the au-
thority of an ambassador. The laws of
the country in which he lived could not
touch him, could neither confine his
person, nor seize his goods, nor search
his house. Over such of his country-
men as fell into his power he exercised
autocratic sway. If he suspected a pas-
senger of being a deserter or a criminal,,
he could send him home; if he caught
a ship in a contraband act, he could
order it back to its port. When Dr.
Franklin came to arrange the Consular
Service of the two countries, the Count
de Vergennes simply handed him a copy
of the Consular Convention established
between France and the Continental
powers; and this the Doctor accepted,
signed, and sent home for ratification,
supposing it to be ~the correct and
only thing admissible. Congress
received it, as Jefferson reports,
with the deepest concern. They
honored Dr. Franklin, they were at-
tached to the French nation, hut they
could not relinquish fundamental prin-
ciples. The convention was returned
to Jefferson, with new instructions and
powers ; and he succeeded, after a
long and difficult negotiation, in in-
ducing the French government to limit
those excessive consular powers. The
government, he explains, anticipated a
very extensive emigration from France
to the United States, which, under the
old consular system, they could have
controlled; and hence they yielded it
with the utmost reluctance, and inch
by inch. But they yielded it, at last,
with frankness and good-humor, and
the consular system was arranged as
we find it now.
XVhen we tarn from the plenipoten
tiarys public duties to his semi-official
and voluntary labors, it is impossible
not to be stirred to admiration and
gratitude. I do not know what public
man has ever been more solicitous to
use the opportunities which his office
conferred of rendering solid service to
his country, to institutions, to corpora-
tions, to individuals. He kept four
colleges Harvard, Yale, XVilliam and
Mary, and the College of Philadel
-phia advised of the new inventions,
discoveries, conjectures, books, that
seemed important. And what news he
had to send sometimes! It was he
who sent to America the most impor-
tant piece of mechanical intelligence
that pen ever recorded, the success
of the Watt steam-engine~ by means of
which a peck and a half of coal per-
forms as much work as -a Worse in a
day. He – conversed at Paris with
Boulton, who was Watts partner in
the manufacture of the engines, and
learned from his lips this astounding
fact. But it did not antound him in
the least, he mentions it quietly in
the postscript of a long letter; for no
man yet foresaw the revolution in. all
human affairs which that invention
was to effect. He went to see an en-
gine at work in London afterwards,
but he was only allowed to view the
outward parts of the machinery, and
he could not tell whether the mill
was turned by the steam immediate-
ly, or by a stream of water which the
steam pumped up.
We are all familiar with the system
of manufacturing watches, clocks, arms,
and other objects, in parts so exactly
alike that they can be used without
altering or fitting. It was Jefferson
who sent to Congress an account of
this admirable idea, which he derived
from its ingenious inventor, a French
mechanic. He also forwarded speci-
mens of the parts of a musket-lock, by
way of illustration. The system, which
was at first employed only in the man-
ufacture of arms, seems now about to
be applied to all manufactures. He
sent to Virginia particular accounts of
the construction of canals and locks,
View page 416

416 Ycfferson Amcrican Minister in France. [Octo1~er,

and of the devices employed in Europe
for improving and extending the navi-
gation of rivers ; information peculiar-
ly welcome to General Washington and
the companies formed under his aus-
pices to extend the navigation of the
James and the Potomac back to the
Virginian as he was, he had a Yan-
kees love for an improved implement
or utensil, and he was always sending
something ingenious in that way to a
friend. He scoured Paris to find one
of the new lamps for Richard Hen-
ry Lee, failed to get a good one, tried
again in London, and succeeded. Mad-
ison was indebted to him for getting
made the most perfect watch the arts
could then produce, price six hundred
francs, and a portable copying-press
of his own contriving, besides a great
number of books for his library. A
stroll among the book-stalls was one
of his favorite afternoon recreations
during the whole of his residence in
Paris, so one of his daughters records,
and he picked up many hundreds of
prizes in the way of rare and curious
books, for Madison, Wythe, Monroe,
and himself.
Europe is still the chief source of
our intellectual nourishment; but when
Jefferson was minister in Paris, it was
the only source. America had con-
tributed nothing to the intellectual re-
sources of man, except Franklin; and
the best of Franklin was not yet acces-
sible. We had no art, little science,
no literature; not a poem, not a book,
riot a picture, not a statue, not an edi-
lice. Jefferson evidently recognized it
as a very important part of his duty
to be a channel of communication by
which the redundant intellectual wealth
of one continent should go to lessen
the poverty of the other. He had in
his note-book a considerable list of
Americans, such as Dr. Franklin,
James Madison, George Wythe, Ed-
mund Randolph, Dr. Stiles, of whom
he was the literary agent in Europe,
for whom he received the volumes of
the Encyclop~dia as they appeared, and
subscribed for copies of any work of
value which was announced for publica-
tion. In advance of international copy-
right, and, indeed, before Noah \Veb-
ster had procured a home copyright for
his spelling-book from a few of the
State legislatures (the beginning of
our copyrighf system), Jefferson aided
two American authors to gain some-
thing from the European sale of their
writings. He got forty guineas for an
early copy of Ramsays History of the
Revolutionary War for translation into
French; and when he found that the
London booksellers did not dare sell
the book, he sent for a hundred copies,
and caused it to be advertised in the
London papers, that persons in Eng-
land wishing the work could have it
from Paris, per dilzgence. Similar ser-
vice he rendered Dr. Gordon, author
of the History of the war to which he
had himself contributed.
Some opportunities which occurred
to him of aiding the growth of a better
taste in America for architecture, he
eagerly seized. Virginia was about to
disfigure Richmond with public build-
ings, and the commissioners wrote to
him for plans ; particularly, a plan for a
capitol. What commission could have
been more welcome? From his youth
up, before he had ever seen an edifice
that was not repulsive, he was an en-
thusiast in architecture; and now, in
Paris, it was a daily rapture to pass
one of his favorite buildings. He
would linger near it, he tells one of his
friends, for a long time; would often
go out of his way to catch a view of it;
loved to study it in new lights and un-
usual conditions of the atmosphere,
and never grew weary of admiring it.
As soon, therefore, as he received
the letter from Richmond, he engaged
the best architect of the day, and en-
tered upon the joyous work. They
took for their model the lifaison Quar-
rie of Nisnies, which, he though t,was
one of the most beautiful, if not the
most beautiful and precious morsel of
architecture left us by antiquity; . . .
very simple, but noble beyond expres-
sion. All the time he could spare
from pressing public duties he spent
View page 417


in adapting the ancient model to mod-
ern utilities ; but with all his zeal
the plan consumed time, and he was
aghast one day, to receive news from
home that the commissioners were be-
ginning to build without it. He wrote
to Madison, begging him to use all his
influence for delay. How is a taste,
he asked, for this beautiful art to be
formed in our countrymen unless we
avail ourselves of every occasion when
public buildings are to be erected, of
presenting to them models for their
study and imitation? The loss of a
few bricks, he thought, was not to be
weighed against the comfort of lay-
ing out the public money for some-
thing honorable, the satisfaction of see-
ing an object and proof of national
good taste, and the regret and mortifi-
cation of erecting a monument of our
barbarism, which will be loaded with
execrations as long as it shall endure.
He seems to have smiled at his own
vehemence. You see, he concluded,
I am an enthusiast on the subject of
the arts. But it is an enthusiasm of
which I am not ashamed, as its object
is to improve the taste of my country-
men, to increase their reputation, to
reconcile to them the respect of the
world and procure them its praise.~~
Madison exerted himself; the work
was stopped; the plan was accepted.
But the home architect, as Professor
Tucker tells us, mingled an idea or
two of his own with those of the an-
cient master, and considerations of
economy were allowed to modify parts
of the design. The result many read-
ers have seen in that ill-starred, for-
lorn-looking edifice, the Capitol of Vir-
ginia at Richmond. Near it, on the
capitol grounds, is the best thing
America has yet paid for in the way
of a mox~ument to the memory of de-
serving men, the monument to \Vash-
ington and the other Virginians most
distinguished in the Revolutionary
struggle. Jefferson was much occu-
pied with details of this fine work dur-
ing his residence in Paris. For Vir-
ginia, also, he bought some thousands
of stands of arms and other warlike
VOL. XXX.NO. i8o. 27
Yefferson America;i Minister in France. 417.

material; for, who had yet so much as
thought that Virginia was not a sov-
ereign State?
There was no end of his services to
the infant unskilled agriculture of his
country. In Charleston and Philadel-
phia there was already something in
the way of an Agricultural Society, to
which he sent information, seeds,
roots, nuts, and plants; thus continu-
ing the work begun in his fathers
youth by John Bartram of Philadel-
phia, to whom be honor and gratitude
forever! To the Charleston Society,
Jeffersons benefactions ~vere most nu-
merous and important. Upon receiv-
ing the intelligence that he had been
elected a member of the society, he
sent them, with his letter of acknowl-
edgment, son seeds of a grass that
had. been found very useful in the
southern parts of Europe, and was
almost the only grass cultivated in
Malta. It is to be feared the seed
was not duly cared for by the Society,
for the Northern eye looks in vain, in
the Carolinas, for a vivid lawn or a
fine field of grass. Afterwards he pro-
cured for them a quantity of the acorns
of the cork oak. Where are the cork
oaks that should have sprung from
them? He burned with desire to in-
troduce the olive culture into the
Southern States, and he returns again
and again to the subject in his letters.
He saw what a great good the olive-
tree was to Europe, from its hardiness,
its fruitfulness, the low quality of soil
in which it flourishes, and the agreea-
ble flavor it imparts to many viands
otherwise tasteless or disagreeable..
He urged the Charleston Society to
make it a chief object to introduce the
olive, and offered to send them boun-
tiful supplies of plants of every valua-
ble variety, and to be one of five per-
sons to contribute ten guineas a year
for their experimental culture in South
if, he wrote to President Drayton~
the memory of those persons is held,
in great respect in South Carolina who
introduced there the culture of rice, a
plant which sows life and. death. with
View page 418

418 Yejferson A inerican Minister in France. [Oct& b~r,

almost equal hand, what obligations
would be due to him who should intro-
duce the olive-tree, and set the exam-
pie of its culture ! Were the owners
of slaves to view it only as the means
of bettering //~eir condition, how much
would he better that by planting one
of those trees for every slave he pos-
sessed! Having been myself an eye-
witness to the blessings which this
tree sheds on the poor, I never had
my wishes so kindled for the introduc-
tion of any article of new culture into
our own country.
Olive-oil, however, despite his gen-
erous efforts, is not yet an American
product. The Society accepted his
offers. He sent them a whole cargo
of plants. The culture was begun
with enthusiasm. But, whether from
want of skill, or want of perseverance,
or the unsuitableness of the climate, or
the excessive richness of the soil, the
trees did not flourish. The caper, too,
of which he sent seeds and amplest in-
formation, we still import in long, thin
bottles, from Europe. Cotton he dis-
misses with curious brevity, consider-
ing the importance it has since at-
tained. In writing of East India
products to the Charleston Society, he
says, Cotton is a precious resource,
and which canFlot fail with you.
Rice was the great theme of his
agricultural letters. He was surprised,
upon settling for the first time in a
Catholic community, at the vast quan-
tities of rice consumed ; for it was the
great resource of all classes during
Lent. Fish was then a costly article,
so far from the sea. Voltaire laughs
at the Paris dandies of his day who
alleviated the rigors of Lent by break-
fasting with their mistresses on a fresh
fish brought, post, from St. Malo, that
cost five hundred francs, a delicate
mark of attention, he observes~ to a
pretty penitent. Rice, however, was
the standing dish in France during
the fasting-season, and the merchants
timed their importations accordingly.
Jefferson was struck with the small
quantity of American rice brought to
French ports and the low price it
brought. Upon inquiry, he was told
that the American rice (which reached
France by way of England) was in-
ferior in quality to that of Piedmont
and not so well cleaned. He sent
to Charleston specimens of the kinds
of rice sold in Paris, explained the in-
conveniences of a circuitous commerce,
urged the Carolinians to send cargoes
direct to Havre, and told them to be
sure to get the hulk of the supply
in port a month before Lent. As to
the imperfect cleaning, he resolved to
investigate that point to the uttermost.
Being at Marseilles in 1787, he in-
quired on every hand concerning the
machine employed in Italy to hull and
clean the rice. No one could tell him.
The vast national importance of the
matter, together with the warm re-
sponses which he had received from
Charleston to his letters upon rice, in-
duced him to cross the Alps and trav-
erse the rice country on purpose to
examine the hulling-mill employed
there, to the use of which he supposed
the higher price of the Italian rice was
due. I found their machine, he
wrote to Edward Rutledge of South
Carolina, exactly such a one as you
had described to me in Congress in the
year 1783 !
But he did not cross the Alps in
vain. Seeing that the Italians cleaned
their rice by the very mill used in
South Carolina, he concluded that the
Italian rice was of a better kind, and
resolved to send some of the seed to
Charleston. It was, however, part of
the barbaric protective system to pre-
vent the exportation of whatever could
most signally bless other nations ; and
no one was allowed to send seed-rice
out of the country. Jefferson, falling
back on the higher law, took meas-
ures with a muleteer to run a couple of
sacks across the Apennines to Genoa;
but having small faith in the muleteers
success, he filled the pockets of his
coat and overcoat with the best rice of
the best rice-producing district in Italy,
and sent it, in two parcels by different
ships, to Charleston. The muleteer
failed to run his sacks, but this small
View page 419

1872.] Yefferson American Minister in France~, 419

store reached the Charleston Society,
who distributed it among the rice-
planters, a dozen or two of grains to
each. These were carefully sown and
watched, usually under the masters
eye. The species succeeded well in
the rice country, and enabled the South
Carolina planters to produce the best
rice in the world. If the reader has
had to-day a pudding of superior rice,
its grains were, in all probability, de-
scended lineally from those which Jef-
ferson carried off in his, pockets in
He afterwards sent the society rough
seed-rice from the Levant, from Egypt,
from Cochin-China, from the East In-
dies; besides an improved tooth of
a rice-mill. He also perfected with
the French government and with
French merchants the best arrange-
ments then possible for the direct im-
portation of rice from South Carolina
and Georgia. No man was ever more
vigilant than he in detecting opportu-
nities to benefit his country. How did
he get unhulled rice from Cochin-
China? The young prince of that
country, lately gone from hence, having
undertaken that it shall come to me.
Nor did he confine his services to
his own country; for, as he said more
than once, he regarded the office which
he filled as international, and he wished
to be the medium of good to both coun-
tries. Among other American produc-
tions, he sent for two or three hundred
peccan nuts from the far West, for
planting in France. To Dr. Stiles he
wrote: Mrs. Adams gives me an ac-
count of a flower found in Connecticut,
which vegetates when suspended in
the air. She brought one to Europe.
What can be this flower? It would be
a curious present to this continent.
Such hints were seldom dropped in
vain. Some of his correspondents
took extraordinary pains to gratify his
desires of this nature. The venerable
Buffon, getting past eighty then, and
verging to the close of his illustrious
career, was indebted to Jefferson for
torrents of information concerning na-
ture in America, as well as for many
valuable specimens. He gave the great
naturalist the skin of a panther, which
the old man had never seen, and had
not mentioned in his work; also, the
horns and skins of American deer, the
feet and combs of American birds, and
many other similar objects.
He did not, it seems, always agree
with Buffon. The old man held chem-
istry in contempt, mere cookery, he
called it, and held that a chemist was
no better than a cook. I think it,
said Jefferson, on the contrary, the
most useful of sciences, and big with
future discoveries for the utility and
safety of the human race. He com-
bated, also, the Count de Buffons
theory of the degeneracy of animals in
America. After much discussion, he
tried an argument similar to that which
Dr. Franklin had used, when, in reply
to a remark of the same nature, he re-
quested all the Americans seated on
one side of the table to stand, and then
all the Frenchmen, who happened to
sit in a row on the other side. The
Americans towered gigantic above the
little Gauls, and the Doctor came off
triumphant. Jefferson, on his part,
wrote to General Sullivan of New
Hampshire to send him the bones and
skin of a moose, mightiest of the deer
kind; Sullivan, exaggerating the im-
portance of the object, on fire to do
honor to his country and oblige its rep-
resentative, formed a hunting party,
plunged into the measureless snows of
the New Hampshire hills, found a herd,
killed one, cut a road twenty miles to
get it home, got the flesh from the
bones, packed skeleton and skin in a
great box, with horns of five other vari-
eties of American deer, and sent it on
its way to the ocean. In the course of
time, Mr. Jefferson received a bill of
thirty-six guineas for the carriage of
the box, and a glowing account from
General Sullivan of his exertions in
procuring its contents. He paid the
bill with a wry face, but the moose
did not arrive. Six months after the
grand hunt, he wrote thus: That the
tragedy might not want a proper catas-
trophe, the box, bones and alJ, are lost;
View page 420

420 Yefferson American Minister in France. [Octoker,

so that. this chapter of Natural History
will still remain a blank. But I have
written to him not to send me another.
I will leave it for my successor to fill
up, ~whenever I shall make my bow
here. A week later, however, he had
the pleasure of sending the box to the
Count de Buffon, promising much larger
horns another season. The naturalist
gracefully acknowledged the gift, and
owned that the moose was indeed an
animal of respectable magnitude. I
should have consulted you, sir, said
he, before publishing my Natural His-
tory, and then I should have been sure
of my facts. He died next year, too
soon to enjoy the enormous pair of
bucks horns coming to Jefferson from
his native mountains, to maintain in Eu-
rope the credit of his native continent.
The publication of Jeffersons Notes
on Virginia, in English and in French,
was an interesting event of his resi-
dence in Europe. Saturated as the
book was with the republican senti-
ment of which he was the completest
living exponent, it was eagerly sought
after in Paris, and had its effect upon
the time. He appears to have taken
a modest view of the merits of the
work. I have sometimes thought,
he wrote to his friend Hopkinson of
Philadelphia, of sending my Notes to
the Philosophical Society as a tribute
due to them; but this would seem as
if I considered them as worth some-
thing, which I am conscious they are
not. I will not ask for your advice on
this occasion, because it is one of those
on which no man is authorized to ask
a sincere opinion.
A work much more important, upon
which he valued himself more than
upon anything he ever wrote in his
life, except the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, and far more meritorious
than that, was published in Paris in
1786. I mean his Act for Freedom of
Religion, passed in that year by the
Virginia legislature. He had copies of
it printed, according to his custom. It
was received and circulated with an
ominous enthusiasm. I say ominous;
for the first effect of ideas so much in
advance of the state of things could not
but be destructive and disastrous. The
whole Diplomatic Corps complimented
the author by asking for a copy to
transmit to their several courts, and he
had it inserted in the Encycloj5ldie, to
which he had contributed articles, and
material for ~trticles, on subjects re-
lating to the United States. I think,
he wrote to his old friend and mentor,
George Wythe, that our Act for Free-
dom of Religion will produce consider-
able good even in these countries,
where ignorance, superstition, poverty,
and oppression of body and mind, in
every form, are so firmly settled on the
mass of the people, that their redemp-
tion from them can never be hoped.
Never is a long time. He told George
Wythe that if every monarch in Europe
were to try as hard to emancipate the
minds of his subjects from ignorance
and prejudice, as he was then trying to
keep them benighted, a thousand years
would not raise them to the American
level. He attribute.d the superiority of
Americans, in freedom and dignity of
mind, to their severance from the parent
stock and their separation from it by a
wide ocean ; which had placed all
things under the control of the co;n-
mon sense of the teop he.
A summons from Mr. Adams, his
colleague in the commission for nego-
tiating commercial treaties, called him
to London in March, 1786. He spent
two months in England. The visit
was an utter and a woful failure. What
evils might have been avertedthe
war of 1812, for one item if that un-
happy dotard of a king had had the
least glimmer of sense, or the smallest
touch of nobleness He received these
two gentlemen, representatives of an
infant nation offering amity and recipro-
cal good, in a manner so churlish as
left them no hope of being so much as
decently listened to. And they were
not decently listened to. Ministers
were cold, vague, evasive. Merchants
said to them, in substance America
must send us her produce, must buy
our wares ; we are masters of the situ-
ation. Why should we treat? What
View page 421


do we want more? Society, too, gave
them the cold shoulder. These two
men, the most important personages
upon the island, if England could but
have known it, were held of less ac-
count than a couple of attach6s of the
Austrian legation. It required cour-
age, as Mr. Adams intimates, for a
nobleman to converse with them at an
assembly. That nation, wrote Mr.
Jefferson, hate us; their ministers
hate us; and their king, more than all
other men. Strange infatuation! Fa-
tal blindness
Of course, being human, Mr. Jeffer-
son did not relish England. He found
the people heavy with beef and beer,
of a growling temper, and excessively
prone to worship power, rank, and
w.alth. They are by no means the
free-minded people we suppose them
in America. Their learned men, too,
are few in number, and are less learned,
and infinitely less emancipated from
prejudice, than those of France. In
the mechanic arts, he admitted, they
surpassed all the world, and he enjoyed
most keenly the English gardens and
parks. London, he thought a hand-
somer city than Paris, but not as hand-
some as Philadelphia; and the archi-
tecture generally in England, the most
wretched he ever saw, not excepting
America, nor even Virginia, where it
is worse than in any other part of
America I have seen.
He set the Londoners right on one
point. The crack invention of the mo-
ment was a carriage wheel, the circum-
ference of which was made of a single
piece of wood. As these wheels were
patented and made in London, the in-
vention was claimed as English. He
told his friends, and caused the fact to
be published, that the farmers in New
Jersey were the first, since Homers
day, who were known to have formed
wheels in that manner. Dr. Franklin,
some years before, had chanced to
mention it to the person who then held
the patent. The idea struck him, and
the Doctor went to his shop and as-
sisted him in making a wheel of one
piece. The Jerseymen did it by merely

bending a green sapling, and leaving it
bent till it was set; but as in London
there were no saplings, the philosopher
was kept experimenting for several
weeks. He triumphed, at length, and
made a free gift of the process to the
carriage-maker, who made a fortune by
it. Jefferson visited the shop in which
Dr. Franklin had worked out the idea,
where he received the story from the
owner, who gave the whole credit to
Franklin and spoke of him with love
aTnd gratitude. He also found in the
Iliad the passage which proves that
the Gr~eks and the Jersey farmers em-
ployed the same process He fell
on the ground like a poplar which has
grown smooth in the western part of a
great meado~v, with its branches shoot-
ing from its summit. But the chariot-
maker with the sharp axe has felled it,
that he may bend a wheel for a beauti-
ful chariot. It lies drying on the banks
of a river.
In company with Mr. Adams, he
made the usual tour of England, visit-
ing the famous parks, towns, battle-
fields, edifices. So far as his letters
show, nothing kindled him in England
but the gardens, the article in which
England excels all the earth, and
he made the most minute inquiries as
to the cost of maintaining those exqui-
site places, in order to ascertain whether
it were possible for him to have a really
fine garden at Monticello. It is to be
presumed he applauded Mr. Adamss
harangue to the rustics on the battle-
tIe-field of Worcester, Cromwells
crowning mercy. The impetuous
Adams, exalted by the recollections
called up by the scene, was offended at
the stolid indifference of the people
who lived near by. Do Englishmen,
he exclaimed, so soon forget the
ground where liberty was fought for?
Tell your neighbors and your children
that this is holy ground; much holier
than that on which your churches
stand! All England should come in
pilgrimage to this hill once a year!
The by-standers, as Mr. Adams re-
ports, were animated and pleased by
this compliment to their native field.
7effcrson American Minister in France.
View page 422

422 riqiferson American Minister in France. [Oct8ber,

The two Americans visited Stratford-
upon-Avon, but Mr. Jefferson only re-
cords that he paid a shilling for seeing
Shakespeares house, another shilling
for seeing his tomb, four shillings and
twopence for his entertainment at the
inn, and two shillings to the servants.
Mr. Adams, on the contrary, ventured
the bold remark that Shakespeares
wit, fancy, taste, and judgment, his
knowledge of life, nature, and charac-
ter, were immortal.
Jefferson played his last piece upon
the violin in Paris. Walking one day
with a friend four or five miles from
home, absorbed in earnest conversa-
tion, he fell and dislocated his right
wrist. He grasped it firmly with his
other hand, and, resuming the conver-
sation, walked home in torture, of which
his companion suspected nothing. It
was unskilfully set, and he never, as
long as he lived, recovered the proper
use of it; could never again write with
perfect ease, could never again play
upon his instrument. Mr. Randall re-
marks the curious fact, that, so inveter-
ate had become the habit of entering
his expenditures, he continued to re-
cord items, that very afternoon, using
his left hand. In the morning, before
the accident, he entered the payment
to his steward, Petit, of five hundred
and four francs for various household
expenses, and, in the afternoon, after
the accident, in a hand more legible,
records the expenditure of 24 f. io
for buttons, and 4 f. 6 for gloves.
The next day, he was out again, see-
ing the kings library, for which he
paid three francs.
The wrist being weak and painful
five months after the accident, the doc-
tors filled up the measure of their
absurdity by advising him to try the
waters of Aix in Provence. He tried
those waters, and, deriving no benefit
from them, resumed his journey and
enjoyed an instructive and delightful
four months tour of France and italy;
visiting especially the seaports, rice
districts, and regions noted for the cul-
ture of particular products. The cities,
he says, he made a job of; and gener
ally gulped it all down in a day; but
he was never satiated with rambling
through the fields and farms, examin-
ing the culture and cultivators with a
degree of curiosity which make some
take me to be a fool, and others to be
much wiser than I am. But he did
not always find the towns so devoid of
interest. It was upon this tour that he
saw at Nismes the edifice which he
had taken for a model for the capitol at
Richmond. Here I am, madam, he
wrote to one of his friends, gazing
whole hours at the Maison Quarrie,
like a lover at his mistress. The stock-
ing-weavers and silk-spinners around
it consider me a hypochondriac En-
glishman about to write with a pistol
the last chapter of his history. This
is the second time I have been in love
since I left Paris. The first was with
a Diana at the Chateau de Laye-Epi-
naye in Beanjolois, a delicious morsel
of sculpture by M. A. Slodtz. This,
you will say, was in rule, to fall in love
with a female beauty ; but with a
house It is out of all precedent.
No, madam, it is not without prece-
dent in my own history. At Vienna,
he owns to having been in a rage on
seeing a superb Roman palace de-
faced and hewed down into a
hideous utility.
When he saw men working long
hours and hard for forty cents a week,
children toiling witl~ the hoe, women
carrying heavy loads, tending locks,
striking the anvil, and holding the
plough, he sometimes made rather vio-
lent entries in his brief, hurried diary.
For example Few chateaux; no
farmhouses, all the people being gath-
ered in villages. Are they thus col-
lected by that dogma of their religion
which makes them believe, that, to
keep the Creator in good-humor with
his own works, they must mumble a
mass every day?
The hopeless, helpless condition of
the peasantry in some parts of France
to which nature had been most bounti-
ful struck him to the heart again and
again. It was his custom, as he wan-
dered among the farms and vineyards,
View page 423


to enter their abodes upon some pre-
text, and converse with the wives of
the absent laborers. He would con-
trive to sit upon the bed, instead of the
offered stool, in order to ascertain of
~vhat material it was made, and he
would peep on the sly into the boiling
pot of grease and greens to see what
was to be the family dinner. He had
left Lafayette at Paris deeply absorbed
in. the early movements of the coming
revolution, and he begged him to come
into the southern provinces and see
for himself what occasion there was for
discontent. To do it most effectual-
ly, he said, you must be absolutely
incognito; you must ferret the people
out of their hovels as I have done, look
into their kettles, eat their bread, loll
on their beds on pretence of resting
yourself, but, in fact, to find if they are
soft. You will feel a sublime pleas-
ure in the course of this investigation,
and a sublimer one hereafter, when you
shall be able to apply your knowledge
to the softening of their beds, or the
throwing a morsel of meat into their
kettle of vegetables.
What a republican such scenes as
these made of him! How he came to
hate, abhor, despise, and loathe the
hereditary principle ! And all the
more, because his post gave him the
means of knowing the exact calibre of
the hereditary kings and nobles who
took from these faithful laborers near-
ly all their toil produced, and left them
thistles and garbage for their own sus-
tenance. There is not a crowned
head in Europe, he wrote to General
Washington in 1788, whose talents
or merits would entitle him to be elect-
ed a vestryman by the people of Amer-
ica; and he gave it to the general as
his opinion that there was scarcely an
evil known in Europe which could not
be traced to the monarch as its source,
nor a good which was not derived
from the small fibres of republicanism
existing among them.
The king of France he knew was a
fool; and the queen, at a moment when
the fate of the monarchy seemed to
hang upon a few millions more or less
Yefferson American Minister in France. 423

in the treasury, gratified to the full a
mania for high play. The kings of
Spain and of Naples knew. but one in-
terest in life, the slaughter of birds,
deer, and pigs. They passed their
lives in hunting, and d espatched two
couriers a week, one thousand miles,
to let each other know what game they
had killed the preceding days. The
successor to the great Frederick was
a mere hog in body and mind.
George III. was a madman, and his
son an animal of the same nature as
the king of Prussia. According to
Jefferson, England was as happy in her
Prince of Wales in 1789, as she is
in 1872. A friend (probably the Duke
of Dorset) described to him the be-
havior of the prince ata little dinner
of four persons
He ate half a leg of mutton; did
not taste the small dishes because
small; drank champagne and burgun-
dy as small beer during dinner, and
Bordeaux after dinner, as the rest of
the company. Upon the whole, he ate
as much as the other three, and drank
about two bottles of wine without
seeming to feel it He has not a
single element of mathematics, of natu-
ral or moral philosophy, or of any oth-
er science on earth nor has the society
he has kept been such as to supply the
void of education. It has been that of
the lowest, most illiterate, and profli-
gate persons in the kingdom He
has not a single idea of justice, moral-
ity, religion, or of the rights of men, or
any anxiety for the opinion of the
world. He carries that indifference
for fame so far, that he probably would
not be hurt were he to lose his throne,
provided he could be assured of having
always meat, drink, horses, and women.
Compared with the political system
which placed such animals as these
upon the summit of things, and made
life burdensome, shameful, and bitter to
nearly all but such, Jefferson thought
the least good of the American govern-
ments a paragon of perfection. The
very evils of democracy he learned to
regard with a kind of favor. A little
rebellion, now and then, like that in
View page 424

424 Phebe~ [October,

Massachusetts in 1786, he thought,
might be, upon the whole, beneficial.
It is true, he wrote, that our gov-
ernments want energy; and this, he
confessed, was an inconvenience.
But the energy which absolute gov-
ernments derive from an armed force,
which is the effect of the bayonet con-
stantly held at the breast of every citi-
zen, and which resembles very much
the stillness of the grave, must be
admitted also to have its inconven-
iencies. The outrageous license of
the London newspapers seemed to him
an evil not greater than the suppres
sions and the perversions of the more
shackled press of the Continent. He
made an acute observation on this
point to Thomas Paine in 7787, the
truth of which every inhabitant of New
York who has glanced over the news-
papers during the last four years can
The licentiousness of the press
produces the same effect which the
restraint of the press was intended to
do. If the restraint prevents things
from being told, the licentiousness of
the press prevents things from being
believed when they are told.
7czmes Parto;:.


D HEBE, idle Phebe,
10n the doorstep in the sun,
Drops the ripe-red currants
Through her fingers, one by one.
Heedless of her pleasant work,
Rebel murmurs rise and lurk
In the dimples of her mouth.
Winds come perfumed from the South;
Musical with swarms of bees
Are the overhanging trees:
Phebe does not care
If the world is fair.
Phebe! Phebe!
It was but a wandering bird
That pronounced the word

Phebe, listless Phebe,
Leaves the currants on the stem,
Saying, Since he comes not,
Labor s lost in picking them:
Loiters down the alleys green
Crowds of blushing pinks between,
Followed by a breeze that goes
Whispering secrets of the rose.
Does that saucy birds keen eye
Read her heart, as he flits by?
Syllables that mock,
Haunt the garden-walk:

1992 Democrat Coalition calls Virgil Goode Bigot

December 22, 2006

On 9-11, as the smoke rose up, the MSM started calling those who had or might call on stopping immigration bigots. Why? Because Pat Buchanan said stop immigration in 1992 and they called him a bigot as an election ploy to get Clinton elected. They did the same in 1996 and in 2000 for Gore.

Those who were for immigration after the WTC 1993 attacks and before the WTC and Pentagon 2001 attacks know they can’t come out and directly call the 9-11 families, bigots. But they want to make the 9-11 families afraid to speak up too much to stop immigration.

So instead of calling the 9-11 families bigots, they call Virgil Goode a bigot. Or they might call Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs bigots. Paul Begala called Virgil Goode a bigot to frighten Bay Bucahan from telling that Begala was part of the 1992 Clinton election team that played with American lives by calling Buchanan a bigot. They won the 1992 election and on 9-11, almost 3000 people died from the immigration that Begala and Clinton said Buchanan was a bigot to want to stop.

Now we are going to hear everyone who was part of the 1992 coalition to elect Clinton call Virgil Goode a bigot. Why? Because they all have 9-11 guilt.

9-11 was a Muslim act of mass murder on Christians and Jews on American soil. Those who get fund raising from these sources, or want their votes have to call the truth tellers like Virgil Goode bigots to keep their supporters, donors, or voters from asking questions.

My security code is square.


“Surely, on this holiday eve, there is one Republican who wants to speak publicly for goodwill towards others, even if they’re Muslim.”

Surely, on this holiday eve, there is one Democrat who wants to speak publicly for goodwill towards others, even if they tell the truth about 9-11, the hijackers shouldn’t have been here, we should have stopped immigration after:

WTC 1993 Attack

1996 Bojinka Plot

1998 Embassy bombings

1998 bin Laden Fatwa

2000 Cole Attack

Aug 6 2001 PDB

9-11 2001

My security code is mine.


Good post Frog Daddy.

Some think the flying imams are meant to test our security and to make us give it up, and even make it illegal. Some think this or other incidents were a dry run.

Before 9-11, the schools where the hijackers trained were afraid to be called bigots if they turned them in. Some did anyhow, but the FBI had the same problem, especially at the top.

“hopefully we won’t learn the hard way.” that those who call us bigots were against us in the first place.

Those who call our champions bigots were against us in the first place.

Those who call truth tellers bigots were against us in the first place, and this is the truth they don’t want told the most.



I for one am sick of your racist crap, Old Atlantic. Would you suggest deporting everyone who came? Since when? Ellison dates his roots to the 18th century, is that far enough back for you? And Merry Christmas.
Posted by: global citizen

end quote

Virgil Goode brought up the issue of stopping immigration. Why do you conflate stopping immigration with deporting? Because to stop it is to admit it was wrong. That is why you switch from stopping immigration to deporting. In your heart, you know they shouldn’t have been allowed in.

Crying bigot is the last refuge of those who are wrong.

My security code is shoe. We have to take off our shoes because of the shoe bomber, who was, gasp, Muslim. He thought he was acting on the basis of Islam, and Islamic courts world wide tend to support that view. We have to decide if we want to stop things getting worse before America is Lebanon or wait until its Iraq.

How tired of racism will you be when America is in civil war like France already is? The racism that shoots you, bombs you, shoe bombs you, takes you hostage, asks for ransom, doesn’t let you put Cartoons where you want, is the real bigotry. They wrote it down in a book, its called the Koran. It means what it says. Muslims believe in the Koran, not you.


The Koran is written as war propaganda. It was written in 656 AD. It commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims and conquer the world. That’s what it says.

Religious courts in Islamic countries come to similar rulings on stoning and lashing women, etc.

Muslims believe in the Koran as written by God, every word. In every Muslim land, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. have been forced out or killed. That is going on today in Lebanon and Bethlehem.

Muslims don’t believe in you, they believe in the Koran. Muslims believe in Islam, its not what you believe in.

Liberals have 9-11 guilt. If they stop immigration now, they admit it was wrong after the WTC 93 attacks. They have to admit Pat Buchanan was right in 1992.

Liberals hate their victims, and they can’t admit the truth, which is what stopping immigration is, an admission of truth.

My security code is loss.


bin Laden’s 1998 Fatwa:

begin quote

Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.”

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it,

end quote

Islam as a unitary entity, religious-political-military attacked the Christian Jewish Western Superpower in 633 AD. The Koran was written in 656 AD from recollections of warriors. It was written down starting in 633 AD because some Muslim holy warriors died in the 633 AD battle of Yamama initiated by Islam as a unitary entity against the Eastern Roman Empire, the Western superpower.

bin Laden’s fatwa is the same thing. His attack on 2001 is the same thing. We responded by sending armies to Afghanistan and then Iraq. It makes no sense to send armies there and not stop their immigration here. We stopped immigration after Pearl Harbor.

What’s the difference? 9-11 was an attack from within by immigrants, so to stop immigration now is an admission that Pat Buchanan was right in 1992 to want to stop immigration.

My security code is profit.


Bethlehem 85 percent Christian 1948, 12 percent 2006. There is violence against Christians in Bethlehem today, which is done by Muslims.

Most Muslims want Sharia law in Palestine. University of Jordan did a survey of views in Palestine and other Muslim lands, and most Muslims i all those countries want Sharia law as a source or the sole source of law.

Christians in Morocco are persecuted. Its in every Muslim country.

Americans were taking hostage by North African countries c. 1800, c. 1900, and have been taken hostage or attacked multiple times by other Muslim countries. From 1500 to the French occupation in the 19th century, North Africa took over 1 million Christians slaves in raiding parties on the seas, Europe and North America.

One act of kindness or even many doesn’t make up for an eventual genocide or forcing out. Muslims want Sharia law, they want Islam, that’s why they are Muslims.

Real bigots are liberals who say that Muslims believe what they believe in.

Letting Muslims in the West has corresponded to persecution of Christians and Jews and Hindus in Muslim lands. It makes them think they are winning. Qaddafi said in 50 years Europe will be Muslim. Ergo, Muslims don’t have to change, i.e. become liberals.

Muslims aren’t liberals. You hate Protestants so much, you can’t see that. They take your comments as the sign of weakness.

Also your argument on sign of weakness doesn’t make sense. If they thought like you do, they would stop persecuting Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc. in their lands, which they don’t.

My security code is brain.


Cousin X,

Bad acts by others don’t make it desirable to have bad acts inflicted on us. All the bad acts in history by Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. won’t make me want to be a victim of Muslim violence.

You are a very sad, ignorant, man.
Use your security code.
Posted by: ENZA

Can you be more specific? How ignorant? Why do you want Muslim immigration? What benefit does it have? Immigration has a substitution effect, all immigation does. This makes it undesirable, period.

My security code is wind, as in Wind and the Lion, when Americans were held hostage in Morocco, c. 1900.


sami, I agree with many of your comments, but the issue is continued Muslim immigration. I believe all immigration should stop, with no amnesties or guest worker.

It isn’t beating on immigrants to stop future immigration. This is one of the logical fallacies that permeates the pro immigration arguments.

Sustained immigration causes genetic survival ratios to asymptote to zero. Search on “Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic”. Thus its irrational. This is true for each annual cohort of immigrants, not just those here.


“And all the bad acts in history by Muslims won’t make me want to be a victim of Fundamentalist / Right Wing violence.”

The only fundamentlist violence going on is that being done by Muslims in the US, France, UK, Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, etc.


Realist, I agree with your remarks up to your final sentence. See link on this post for comments on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

BTW Complete 9-11 Timeline needs money and is exposing Bush links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  They have a matching grant but are behind in meeting it.

My security code is judge.

Virgil Goode Right: Stop Muslim Immigration

December 20, 2006

We must stop Muslim immigration to save Western civilization and ultimately our own lives. Political Correctness about Islam or Muslims is lethal.

Why is it moral to bomb people in Iraq but not moral to stop them coming here to kill us? They can’t come here and kill us if they can’t come here. Why is it moral to bomb people in Iraq but not moral to keep the same people coming here as immigrants?

There should be no immigration in time of war. Virgil Goode is right. Stop immigration. This is where we decide whether to win this war or not.

Many people, who disagree with Goode, and many who agree with him will feel they must call me or others on my side bigot. People should feel free to take back those words or move on from them to the substance of the debate.
If people are overcome by PC, that should be ignored as well. Everyone should feel free to revise and extend their remarks because they felt overcome by PC. Its a daily experience we all feel, called fear.

PC-pecking, A method by which all Liberals keep all people in a state of fear. (paraphrase from Firing Line debate many years back on henpecking.)

Surgeons have what the call bleed time. This is a period of time after the first incision. In our PC drenched culture, the equivalent is bigot calling time. This is an initial period when a liberal, or a PC fearful conservative, has to call others bigot, even if they agree with them.

When asked as a ritual to call others bigot, point it out. I decline to call Virgil Goode a bigot. Like Reagen, can turn it around and say, I decline to call my opponent mean spirted or lacking in courtesy.

This debate should be had in good humor. The excesses of rhetoric on both sides should be regarded as good clean fun. We must, in time of war, hold ourselves to the consequences of our choices, not to the high spirits of the debate. We must all live together with the deaths of our people that will continue in this war, both here and there.
Over 3,000 people were killed in the terrorist incidents up to and including 9-11. More have died since then here and there. We owe this debate our best arguments. If that requires use of rhetoric on either side that is a little heavy going, we should respond on the basis of substance. It also allows people to take back what they said or move on, and always to focus on the substance and the consequences.

All remarks here or elsewhere by me should be understod to be revised in that way. There are so many remarks calling this author a bigot that it would be impossible to keep track of them all or even a portion.
This post is draft and preliminary and represents some notes on posts made at various sites. This post will be cleaned up and revised as time permits.


December 20th, 2006 at 10:18:21 From: Fallaci Admirer

bin Laden’s Fatwa: Kill Americans
“We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.”

They believe the Koran commans them to kill every American. “On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”


bin Laden’s Fatwa: Kill Americans

“We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.” bin Laden Fatwa 1998

They believe the Koran commands “every Muslim to kill the Americans, civilians and military”.

“On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”

And in August 1998, embassies, Cole 2000, WTC 2001 and Pentagon 2001, etc. they did it according to this Fatwa. 9-11 was done by legal immigrants who came after the WTC 1993 attack.



“1. Sources

The primary source for Islamic Law is the Koran. The second element is known as the Sunna, these being the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed and his oldest disciples not explicitly found in the Koran. The third element of Shari’a Law is known as the Ijma. These are rules developed on the basis of debate and subsequent consensus among religious scholars and the Moslem community as a whole. When these three main sources fail to provide adequate guidance, they are supplemented by a system in which the jurist can draw parallels with the first three sources (the Qiyas). Finally, there are several other methods for developing judgements, each of which allows increased use of discretion by the jurist. These latter sources allow for the development of Shari’a Law in more liberal jurisdictions, but are rejected in more conservative jurisdictions.”

“In the Hadith, homosexual behaviour is condemned harshly: “whenever a male mount another male, the throne of God trembles”……… if you see two people who act like the people of Lot, then kill the active and the passive”.”

“Legal Sanctions
The punishment that the Islamic jurists generally prescribe for adultery, and therefore also for homosexual behaviour, is stoning to death for married people, and 100 lashes for unmarried people…”

Gays flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target” Jennifer Copestake Guardian August 6, 2006.,,1838222,00.html

Sharia Koran


Saudi Religious Police burn schoolgirls to death for being improperly dressed Saudi police ‘stopped’ fire rescue
Saudi Arabia’s religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.”

“TEHRAN (Reuters) – An Iranian man cut off his seven- year-old daughter’s head after suspecting she had been raped by her uncle, the Jomhuri-ye Eslami newspaper said on Sunday.
…”The motive behind the killing was to defend my honor, fame, and dignity,” the paper quoted the father as saying. (Source)”

“Judicial Rape in Iran and the Sudan
Women, Islam & Equality describes Iran’s version of the “Muslim” religion:

According to a “religious” decree, virgin women prisoners must as a rule be raped before their execution, “lest they go to Paradise.””


” It (US) also leads in murders and other violent felonies.”



crime immigration

crime immigration

Borjas black

“The employment rate of black men in the United States fell precipitously from 89.6 percent in 1960 to 76.1 percent in 2000… The decline in labor market participation among black men was accompanied by a rapid increase in the number of black men in correctional institutions. As recently as 1980, only 0.8 percent of black men … were incarcerated. By 2000, 9.6 percent of black men … were incarcerated.”

From Steve Sailer


December 20th, 2006 at 11:27:11 From: Fallaci Admirer
“UK: Police killer escapes in veil”


“All other religions, despite their bloody past are now only concerned with personal piety and spiritual development of their followers. Some of them also get involved in works of charity like Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, etc. But Muslims are the only group that still thinks of Jihad, and expansion of their religion through violent means. Muslims are the only group that believes their god has given them the mission to kill those who reject him. Muslims are the only group that still endeavors to impose the antiquated misogynistic laws of their “holy” book. And Muslims are the only group that has not apologized for the crimes of their past and keeps committing those crimes even today.”

“I am a former muslim convert, and the religion of Islam fascinated me. Being the pacifist i was, i was drawn to the “religion of peace.” Until i discovered the truth about the religion, and my purpose is to share it with you I intend by all means neccesary to remain anonymous, for death is the punishment for apostates and those who speak ill of Islam. Contact me at:”

Muslim atrocities


December 20th, 2006 at 11:55:50 From: Fallaci Admirer
MSM bemoans defeat
What is new and interesting in this op-ed blog? The MSM don’t like being confronted with fact. Men’s median wages are lower today than in 1973. This is caused by immigration that Wall Street Journal pushes. Black men’s incarceration rates are up from before the 1965 Immigration Act to today by an increase in a factor of ten, from less then 1 percent to about 9 percent. The percentage employed drop by a similar figure. Its this fact, the WSJ doesn’t want pushed back at it. See

“The employment rate of black men in the United States fell precipitously from 89.6 percent in 1960 to 76.1 percent in 2000… The decline in labor market participation among black men was accompanied by a rapid increase in the number of black men in correctional institutions. As recently as 1980, only 0.8 percent of black men … were incarcerated. By 2000, 9.6 percent of black men … were incarcerated.” by Steve Sailer. WSJ doesn’t want this feedback instantly.


“Spencer’s Truth About Muhammad banned in Pakistan!”


December 20th, 2006 at 12:44:39 From: Fallaci Admirer
“Ignorance” about Islam, Jihadwatch the cure
“Sixth month in jail for Saudi woman involuntarily divorced from husband by half-brothers”


“2006: The Year Of Perpetual Muslim Outrage”

By Michelle Malkin


December 20th, 2006 at 12:55:39 From: Fallaci Admirer

Save the soldiers, invade Iran now
They also serve who keep our total deaths lower. Fighting now does that. We lost 6,825 on Iwo Jima, from Wiki. That was one battle. We lost under 200 in the combat phase in Iraq. We could defeat all the main enemy homelands, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for less. We paid 3000 occupation phase deaths for the Iraqi bases. We have bases on 3 sides of Iran. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were under 200. Time to fight wars is when battle phase deaths are 200. We will lose millions when they have nukes or more of them come here by immigration and kill us here. They can’t kill us here if we don’t let them come here.


“Only to the same extent it was a “problem” to have a large Catholic immigrant population in a traditionally Protestant one. That is, people like Goode may have a problem with it but who cares?”

<a href=””&gt;
Christian genocide” </a>


“Only to the same extent it was a “problem” to have a large Catholic immigrant population in a traditionally Protestant one. That is, people like Goode may have a problem with it but who cares?”

<a href=””&gt;
Christian genocide” </a>

No Muslim land has not forced out or genocided all the non-Muslims, or isn’t doing it now.


“No Muslim land has not forced out or genocided all the non-Muslims, or isn’t doing it now.

Unless I really don’t understand the situation in Darfur, your comment is incorrect unless you want to get pendantic and technical in your parsing (i.e. “Muslim land”). ” from Edo

First, a technical response, then a response on Darfur.
Darfur genocide is described by CS Monitor as Arab Muslims on black Muslims as victims. This is not in conflict with the statement “No Muslim land has not forced out … the non-Muslims”, since Darfur as so-described is not part of the subject matter of this statement.

Now as for Darfur.

“Sudan, like most African postcolonial states, is partially a victim of imperial cartography. Thoughtlessly carved out by the British during the 19th-century scramble to claim Africa, Sudan is a forced crucible of Muslim Arabs and black Africans. The blacks in the south either hew to their ancestral traditional African religions or have converted to Christianity. The fact that black Africans in Darfur are exclusively Muslim has not stopped the Arab Janjaweed militias and the government from exterminating them.”

<a href=””&gt;
CS Monitor on Darfur </a>

Arab Muslims consider blacks, Muslim or not to be not their equals. Arab Muslims for centuries had a slave trade in blacks that involved their not surviving long term.

Basically, the Arabs for over a 1000 years took blacks as slaves and then didn’t breed them as in the old South in the US but instead prevented that by various means. The result of this history is a permanent state of mind of Arabs towards blacks.

This comes from the time when Arabs were Muslim and blacks were not. The same treatment is being applied to the blacks by the Arabs today as in the time that blacks were not Muslim.

Thus the Darfur genocide is inherited from prior genocide by Arab Muslims of blacks for centuries as part of their slave management methods.


“No Muslim land has not forced out or genocided all the non-Muslims, or isn’t doing it now.

Unless I really don’t understand the situation in Darfur, your comment is incorrect unless you want to get pendantic and technical in your parsing (i.e. “Muslim land”). ” from Edo

First, a technical response, then a response on Darfur.
Darfur genocide is described by CS Monitor as Arab Muslims on black Muslims as victims. This is not in conflict with the statement “No Muslim land has not forced out … the non-Muslims”, since Darfur as so-described is not part of the subject matter of this statement.

Now as for Darfur.

“Sudan, like most African postcolonial states, is partially a victim of imperial cartography. Thoughtlessly carved out by the British during the 19th-century scramble to claim Africa, Sudan is a forced crucible of Muslim Arabs and black Africans. The blacks in the south either hew to their ancestral traditional African religions or have converted to Christianity. The fact that black Africans in Darfur are exclusively Muslim has not stopped the Arab Janjaweed militias and the government from exterminating them.”

<a href=””&gt;
CS Monitor on Darfur </a>

Arab Muslims consider blacks, Muslim or not to be not their equals. Arab Muslims for centuries had a slave trade in blacks that involved their not surviving long term.

Basically, the Arabs for over a 1000 years took blacks as slaves and then didn’t breed them as in the old South in the US but instead prevented that by various means. The result of this history is a permanent state of mind of Arabs towards blacks.

This comes from the time when Arabs were Muslim and blacks were not. The same treatment is being applied to the blacks by the Arabs today as in the time that blacks were not Muslim.

Thus the Darfur genocide is inherited from prior genocide by Arab Muslims of blacks for centuries as part of their slave management methods.

See Susan Stephen on <a href=””>Arab Slave Trade </a>


December 20th, 2006 at 16:06:53 From: Fallaci Admirer
Immigration => Exploitation
Taking contrapositives, no exploitation implies no immigration.

this is correct.

there can’t be an absence of exploitation unless there
is an absence of immigration.

look at truth table.

Immigration => exploitation

I=> E is true, means following pairs allowed

-I E
-I -E

the pair not allowed is I,-E.

so -E implies -I

The survival rate of this process ranged from 1 in 10 to 1 in 30.

Arabs slaves blacks

Arab slavery

Christians Ottomans


“Muslims For A Safe America conducted a survey at the Islamic Society of North America’s 43rd Annual Convention in Chicago from September 1, 2006 to September 4, 2006. 307 Muslims who are American citizens participated in the survey at the Muslims For A Safe America booth at ISNA,” the organization reports. Some respones:

2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?

3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
YES 208
NO 79

5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117
NO 139

6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200
NO 70
7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106
NO 151

8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 126
FAKE 129

9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140
NO 104

21. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?
YES 161
NO 123

25. Was America justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11?
YES 51
NO 248

The organization notes that “this was NOT a scientific survey, because ISNA Convention attendees who visited the Muslims For A Safe America booth are not necessarily representative of the American Muslim community as a whole.” We really hope so.

Posted by Daniel Freedman at October 26, 2006 11:22 AM

<a href=””&gt;
Source </a>


“Muslim first” “american first”

The other principal focus of Steyn’s book is on the inability of contemporary multiculturalism to provide a meaningful, vigorous base on which to sustain and defend Western civilization. On the contrary, as Steyn sharply remarks,

‘multiculturalism was conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures but to deny their own.’

Hence, ‘the governing principle of multicultural society’ is that ‘Western man demonstrates his cultural sensitivity by pre—emptively surrendering.’ This already is happening in Europe, which Steyn thoroughly documents. But it even is happening in the United States — see the craven response by our political and media establishment to last year’s Cartoon Intifada, and the continued refusal by our law enforcement agencies to engage in ‘racial profiling’ as part of a sensible anti—terrorism strategy. Steyn surely is correct that multiculturalism, and its philosophical twin internationalism, cannot provide the ideological meat needed to maintain a healthy body politic.


cameras in toilets.

people will be cleaner too. “we are all Hizballah now.”

Being a Muslim first is a wholly different thing from being a Christian first.

Being Muslim first brought about the kinds of countries that oppress, enslave, and murder their own people, motivating them by the hundreds of thousands to flee those countries to places like this one, and then criticize it.

Being a Christian first causes me to pray for the conversion of Muslims to engage them where possible in conversation to convince them to believe in Christ and be saved.

Being Muslim first causes them to threaten the infidel with death by the sword, to infiltrate nations in the desire to bring them under Sharia.

Operation Bojinka


“I am laughing at Old Atlantic… I could post just as much stuff from the Bible that makes Christians look like Christianofascists!” from Happy Monkey. These are things happening now and being said now.

They are a continuation of the same things from the past. There is no break point for Islam.

“Have you ever heard of Turkey? A Muslim country to the very core, yet ruled under a civil code of law for the last century?” from Robert.

See URL attached to this post for source and link to NY Times from 1914.

The last century goes back to include 1914.

The Young “secular” Turks were in power in Turkey by 1914. They continued the same genocide of Christians that was going on in the 1890’s. They killed over 1 million Christians.

“From January 13, 1915 New York Times:

“Talaat Bey, the Minister of the Interior, has stated to the Councillor of the Greek Patriarchate that in Turkey henceforth there will be room only for Turks. While he was profuse in assurance to the Greek Minister regarding the cessation of anti- Greek persecutions, no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”” is about things happening now.

9-11 happened in 2001. Did you laugh on that day at those who said to stop Muslim immigration? All 19 hijackers were immigrants from after the WTC 1993 attack. No immigration, no 3000 killed.

What purpose does immigration serve? Men’s median wages are below what they were in 1973? You are programmed to want your own destruction. You are frustrated when someone tells the truth, that is why so many react to Virgil Goode.

Sooner or later every Muslim land genocides or forces out non-Muslims. This is going on today in Lebanon, Bethlehem, etc.

Posted by: Old Atlantic | Dec 20, 2006 5:22:17 PM

Countries are the way they are because of the people.

Australia and NZ are different than surrounding countries because of the people.

If they come from those countries, they behave that way. America will become those countries. That is happening with Hispanic immigration.


Reply to Edo.

The Arab Muslims in Sudan have for centuries exploited blacks, Muslim or not in Sudan. This includes slavery and other bad treatment. You must have somehow misunderstood my comment.

“your claim that all genocides are Christian is just as false”

I think this is the root of your misconception. The issue with Virgil Goode is whether he is right that Muslim immigration is a threat. The proposition that Muslim lands end up genociding non-Muslims goes to that issue. The question is whether have a positive probability to genocide non-Muslims. If so, then allowing their immigration reduces welfare to non-Muslims here. That proves Muslim immigration should not be allowed. That’s the issue.

Muslims have genocided Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Africans with other beliefs, and others.

Since the Darfur genocide victims are primarily Muslim and the genociders are Muslim, Judaism and Christianity are not directly relevant. However, the Arab Muslims in Sudan get their tendency to genocide blacks in Sudan, even black Muslims, from their history of genocide of non-Muslim blacks in Africa. That is the meaning of the inheritance, i.e. genocide of black Muslims in Sudan is inherited from genocide of blacks.

Think of black as the root, and Muslim as a branch. The branch inherits from the root. In this case its a little more complicated since its a relation from Arab Muslims to blacks, but that relation can inherit as well.

The prior genocide by Arab Muslims of those in the south of Sudan did involve many Christians as victims.

Comment by Old Atlantic — 12/20/2006 @ 8:36 pm

That should have been black as root and black Muslim as the branch.

Comment by Old Atlantic — 12/20/2006 @ 8:38 pm


If Muslims discriminate, commit crime, or genocide non-Muslims that is a reason to keep them out.

and if non Muslims do those things to Muslims its a reason to keep the Muslims out.
(to prevent this)

the former is a reason even if the latter is.


Liberalism is anti-West and hates West.,,1705411,00.html

need to face reality.


European civilization and possibly human life on earth, at least as
we know it, is dying as well.

Liberalism is trying to destroy liberalism.,,1707576,00.html

==Ricketson Comment

Mr. Goode’s comments are thuroughly un-American. In America, we do not conflate religion and nationality. There are a number of countries that do consider religion to be part of nationality– collectively, they care called “the old world”–look to Europe and the Middle East for examples.

Our ancestors came to America to create a new world. If Mr. Goode doesn’t like it, and wants to live in a “Christian” nation, he can leave.

Posted by: Adam Ricketson
Date: December 20, 2006 08:21 PM

= Comment on Ricketson
“In America, we do not conflate religion and nationality.”

Islam does conflate religion with politics.

“Mr. Goode’s comments are thuroughly un-American.”

Therefore, for you, Islam is un-American.

” There are a number of countries that do consider religion to be part of nationality– collectively, they care called “the old world”–look to Europe and the Middle East for examples.”

There is a poll from Jordan University that most Muslims in each Middle East country want Sharia as the sole or a source of law.

So you should object to immigration from them.

Robert Spencer wants a survey as part of immigration. You should support that.

“Our ancestors came to America to create a new world. If Mr. Goode doesn’t like it, and wants to live in a “Christian” nation, he can leave.”

Given your statements, and the above facts, that shows that for you, Muslims should leave. Thus your conclusion is not only that Muslims should not immigrate, but that they should leave.

Goode does not in fact advocate conflating religion and state, but Islam does. Read


“I’ve vacationed in Turkey, and if you’re trying to portray that country as anything less than a secular democracy with the most wonderful people you could ever hope to meet, then there’s no doubt in my mind, you’re a Zionist.” from Jenny above.

After the Pope’s remarks, a priest was killed in Turkey. Search on

Christian Turkey

and add Priest, discrimination, etc. and you will
find many articles on persecution there.

Also add the words

The Pope was in Turkey in part to complain about discrimination of Christians. There are many incidents against Christians in Turkey. They don’t have equal rights.


Its intended by Islam that non-Muslims fear Islam and Muslims. Thus Islam intends Islamophobia in non-Muslims. Islam says to invite people to Islam before attacking them. So Islam intends Islamophobia for non-Muslims.


Its intended by Islam that non-Muslims fear Islam and Muslims. Thus Islam intends Islamophobia in non-Muslims. Islam says to invite people to Islam before attacking them. So Islam intends Islamophobia for non-Muslims including Dhimmis living under Islam.

By OldAtlantic | Dec 20, 2006 10:38:43 PM |


Old Atlantic, why do you live in the past? Because you are a failure today?

Comment by JPark — December 20, 2006 @ 10:28 pm

Islam from 622 AD has used fear, war, genocide, democide, etc. on non-Muslims. There is no break point at which Islam stopped using such methods. Every majority Muslim land today is engaged in persecution of Christians, regardless of race or national origin.

Its intended by Islam that non-Muslims fear Islam and Muslims. Thus Islam intends Islamophobia in non-Muslims. Islam says to invite people to Islam before attacking them. So Islam intends Islamophobia for non-Muslims including Dhimmis living under Islam.



Old Atlantic…how has Christianity expanded? Would you like me to count the ways? (which are very similar).

Comment by JPark — December 20, 2006 @ 10:46 pm

The Koran was written in 656 AD. Islam attacked the West in 633 AD as Islam according to itself. The Koran was written during occupation of parts of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Koran commands what was done from 633 AD onwards, was being done in 656 AD and what they might want to do. The Caliphate controlled the final version. They put into it what they were doing in the war.

Thus the Koran freezes wartime propaganda as Islam in the Koran. This is unlike Christianity. Christianity lacks the commands in Islam to kill non-believers, etc. See or bin Laden’s Fatwas.

Immigration causes genetic survival ratios to asymptote to zero. Search on “Unpleasant Immigration Arithemetic”. It is irrational to support sustained immigration because it causes the genetic extinction not only of those here now, but of each year’s cohort of immigrants.

At 300 million steady population, a 75 year lifetime gives 4 million deaths per year. 2 million immigrants then leaves 2 million births in the steady state. 2 million births over 4 million deaths gives a per generation genetic survival ratio of 1/2. Thus in 3 generations one is down to 1/8. If 25 years is the relevant birth to parent time span on average, then one gets extinction in 75 to 100 years. This applies to each annual cohort that comes here. Even if we went to 450 million and had 1 million immigrants per year, similar consequences apply, the deaths per year are 6 million and one gets 5/6 survival ratio per generation. That leads to to about 1/2 in 3 generations or 75 years. So in 150 years one is down to 1/4.
== Alt Proof Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic

Consider this proof. Suppose the genetic survival probability , p, was greater than epsilon > 0. (We really have p(t,T) where t is some start date and T a later date, but we suppress that notation).

Let N be immigrant genes in from date t at date T.

Np is the average number of genes. Since p > epsilon, Np is greater than N epsilon.

Thus Np > B, for N > B/p for any B.

However, the population must be bounded above by some B.

Thus the expected number of genes is greater than an upper bound, a contradiction.

Thus there does not exist epsilon > 0 such that p > epsilon. Thus the genetic survival probability, p, must asympote to zero as N increases.

“Hardy – Weinberg equilibrium calculations only track the survival of a mutational gene in a population, and have zero bearing on human immigration patterns.” The first post gives a numerical example. The second gives a proof for a stochastic process.

This is largely independent of the mechanism.


Genes are large enough to be thought of as tagged or identifiable, they are not quantum particles that are indistinguishable.

You can think of the above proof as applying where we track each gene in perpetuity. Hardy Weinberg doesn’t try to do that in its proof, but simplifies to a form of identical particles, although using classical statistics.

You don’t have to know anything about Hardy Weinberg to follow either the proof or the numerical example. Both of those are valid on their own.



In Hardy Weinberg derivation at wiki, they assume, dear friend, no migration.

“No migration (gene flow)”

“Of course, from a scientific standpoint Old Atlantic’s blather is complete nonsense. Hardy – Weinberg equilibrium calculations only track the survival of a mutational gene in a population, and have zero bearing on human immigration patterns.”

Who is blathering my friend? You try to apply a model with no migration to a migration situation? Who is blathering?


“Comment: Pseudo Science! All rubbish garbage!! racist drivel!!”
Posted by:
Date: December 21, 2006 12:41 AM

This is a numerical example. It does simplify some, but its easy to follow and complications wouldn’t change the results. Numerical examples and theorems are not racist drivel.

Another way to see it is as follows. Suppose that genetic survival probabilities were bounded from below by .1. Suppose one had 10 billion people come in. Then .1 times 10 billion is 1 billion. Thus we would have 1 billion genes as the expected value. Suppose the population couldn’t go above 500 million. Then this would show that the genetic survival probability would have to go below .1

There is a tradeoff between genetic survival probabilities, total immigrants entering (a function of time), and the upper bound on population.

There is a substitution effect caused by immigration. As people come in the direct effect is to increase population, but the substitution effect is to substitute for births. This is as old as history.

Immigrants displace natives or prior immigrant cohorts, and that leads to a partial substitution of immigrants for births. Once births fall below replacement, 2.1 births per woman is a standard figure, then the result is declining numbers of genes until either immigration stops or zero is reached. That’s why Buchanan and others talk about the death of the West and low birth rates in Europe and America, the substitution effect in front of our eyes.

== Fertility Rates Europe

This site lets you look at other regions, e.g. Middle East and Central Asia, which have high birth rates. That is part of their problem. It makes them look towards more extreme answers, i.e. hatred of us for the problems causd by their high birth rate. When they come here, they come with the attitude of invaders, and 9-11 is the result of that attitude. Discrimination, street crime, dirty looks, talking behind our backs, paint ball jihadis, SUV jihadis, etc. are lower level forms of this. All of which happens.


“They came as a nomadic tribe, and it clearly advocated genocide, specifically of the people of Canaan.”

Islam specifies all non-Muslims.

” Religion tends to have violence and the right to conquest written into it, therefore Islam is no different from many others.”

This concedes the point that Islam is violent. Since you admit Islam is violent, the conclusion is not to want Muslim immigration. That is what Goode said.

“Please take your hate and ignorance somewhere else. Hate is not welcome here.” You are shown to contradict your side of the argument by your statements. Isn’t that a form of intolerance? When you make logical errors and then call your forum colleague a hater, are you not engaged in poor reasoning?



Thank you for parsing my argument. My reply is as follows.

“No, he said that Mr. Goode’s position was un-American”

Adam Ricketson used an argument to reach the conclusion. He attributed to Goode the idea that religion and state should be conflated, and based on that Ricketson concluded that Goode was un-American. I then held Ricketson to his claim that conflating religion and state is un-American. Since that is done in Islam, Ricketson is bound by Ricketson’s argument to conclude that Islam, for Ricketson, is un-American.

“Your presumption is that all Muslim immigrants are part of that “most” you cited as wanting Sharia? Are they the most likely to be the ones immigrating to America?”

The 19 on 9-11 clearly did. If we can’t tell, they can’t come. That is in our interest. They don’t have a right to come here.

“And what? By God we will bomb them outta that wish?”

If they can’t come here, they can’t come here and kill us, as they did between WTC 93 and WTC and Pentagon 2001. All the 19 immigrants came in after the WTC 93 attack. Republicans were attacked as bigots for wanting to stop immigration then. Peter Jennings and the MSM realized that on 9-11, realized his guilt, and then pre-emptively attacked restrictionists as bigots to cover up his own guilt. Norman Mineta did the same the next day on profiling. We now know he had warnings before 9-11 that were specific. His reason not to put in profiling on 9-12 was part of the coverup of those warnings. See Complete 9-11 Timeline, which is trying to raise money for a matching grant.

” As long as America holds to its Constitution, no religion will be able to dictate to America…”

The question at issue is how to keep Islam in particular from so dictating. Goode proposes stopping Muslim immigration, which is a sufficient condition, assuming low conversion rates.

“unless we weaken it by blurring the borders with 10 Commandments in courthouses.” The problem is blurring our physical borders by immigration.

I appreciate your personal history in Turkey and taking time to look at my site.

“Turkey is a secular democratic Muslim country that has looked towards Europe and found that Western Europe will never accept them until they “Become Western”.”

They killed a priest after the Pope’s remarks. They have restrictions on Churches. There is still violence against Christians.

“helped us in the first Gulf war.” But not the second.

Also it was the secular Young Turks in control in 1914 who killed over 1 million Christians. That was the secular government. At the same time they helped us in Korea, they also had more violence and discrimination against Christians.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments,

Old Atlantic

Posted by: Old Atlantic
Date: December 21, 2006 09:03 AM


“However, my understanding of history is that invading Muslim armies were remarkably tolerant on “infidels” living in their midst.”

Sometimes. The problem is if they eventually get around to genocide, or forcing out, then its not so good. Also the second class status is not so good anyhow. Do we want to be second class in our own country? Isn’t that a reason to stop Muslim immigration? Goode says let’s not be second class to Muslims in America and people call him a bigot for that?

“However, my understanding of history is that invading Muslim armies were remarkably tolerant on “infidels” living in their midst.”

At times they were. But at other times, not. Once they took over, over time, second class status wore people down. There are no longer many Christians in most Muslim countries. Where did they go? They either converted, left or died out. Genocide doesn’t have to happen fast. Most ones are slow.

“If this widespread genocidal tendency of Muslims is true, would there be Spaniards, Greeks, or Serbs today?”

There are few Christians left in Muslim countries today, such as Turkey which had a large Christian population in 1914, see link attached to my name.

The groups you mention refought and reclaimed their lands with help. In Turkey the Christians were genocided by secular Turks. Bethlehem was 85 percent Christian in 1948 and is 12 percent today. Constantinople was over 50 percent Christian in 1914.

Also a group can be subjected to genocide and still have people alive today. Jews were genocided in WWII, but there are still Jews.

” How about Indians in India?” There has been extensive genocide by Muslims against Hindus and others in India.

Tamerlane’s attack on Delhi is an example. There are projections or claims of as high as 70 million.


The depth of their attack is because Goode told the truth.

After WTC 93 attack they should have stopped immigration. Buchanan said to and they called him a racist bigot. The 19 hijackers came in “legally” after WTC 93. The MSM, Democrats, even Republicans had to lie on 9-11 and call restrictionists bigots to cover up their own complicity.

Mineta was covering up the next day. He said no profiling. The truth was he already had specific warnings. On 9-12, Mineta, was covering up the warnings.

Bush gave his religion of peace speech to cover up the August 6, 2001 PDB he got saying “bin Laden determined to attack in the United States”.
Bush had to have a reason to ignore the warning. His reason was that Islam is a religion of peace. That was his cover story for not responding to the warnings.

Bush killed the 3000 people by negligence. If Bush was commander of a ship he would have been court martialed and judged guilty and relieved.
Bush’s face on 9-11 was an, “I should be court martialed look”.

Congress should have impeached him for ignoring those warnings. Bush was covering up and obstructing Congress’s power of impeachment. He still is.

The attack on Virgil Goode, and on Tom Tancredo, etc. are all part of this cover up for the 9-11 guilt.

As much web presence on liberal blogs for this as possible is needed. Putting up basic information in a neutral way will help. What is “obvious” on Jihad Watch is totally unknown to many people.

Just cut and paste snippets with attribution from the many articles is enough to totally turn around and stop the liberal propaganda machine. This is vital. If your local newsaper allows comments, paste there. E-mail your rep or Senator. They are attacking Goode deliberately. They have had him in their sights and been planning this. Its not just spontaneous.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 12:51 PM




While sending comments to the Congressmen above, and stay very very polite, also send a copy to one of your Senators or your Congressman. Its better to do one than none.

You can look up your Senator. Be polite and short and quote a snippet from Jihad Watch that makes them look at it.

We want to build mind share with Congress for Jihad Watch. You can’t use html, but just use

We were attacked:

WTC 1993

East African embassies August 1998

USS Cole October 2000

WTC and Pentagon 2001.

Not until after the 4th attack did we do anything.

Bin Laden declared war in 1998.

Complete 9-11 Timeline

Can quote from above as well, short with the link as text.

bin Laden’s 1998 Fatwa with bold on quotables

“Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.” On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. ”

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 01:37 PM



We were attacked, we are at war. Congress is supposed to protect us. That’s in the Constitution. Part of protecting us is stopping immigration by those who already attacked us from the inside. They have to do that, its in the Constitution.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 01:40 PM


Oath of Office

Source: Congressional Record (House) – Updated March 10, 2005


The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 109th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25

After Pearl Harbor they fulfilled their oath by stopping immigration from Japan and Germany until after World War II was over, and our armies occupied all enemy homelands. They have to stop Muslim immigration until all enemy homelands in the 100 year war the Pentagon has said we are in are occupied or at real peace with us.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 01:46 PM



Christmas jihad


This is why there shouldn’t be Muslim immigration. How can they predict in advance Muslim terrorist attacks? Isn’t that “racist”?

This is why they attack Virgil Goode, he tells the truth. When they say Muslims will attack us, they should stop their immigration. They can’t have it both ways. If its predictable in advance, they should stop the immigration.
Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 12:45 PM

Troops dying Iraq in Afghanistan is in vain unless we win the war of hearts and minds at home. It may be your loved one who is saved from a future attack. There were sleeper cells from the 1980’s.

Complete 9-11 Timeline

Sleeper cells are entering the country legally now.

We need a web presence on liberal blog sites. Just quote snips with attribution from Jihad Watch articles in a neutral fact way. Turn the other cheek when they call you racist and just feed back facts.

Say Virgil Goode speaks for me. Virgil Goode stands up for me and I stand up for Virgil Goode. I join Virgil Goode in saying stop all Muslim immigration now.

They will go crazy, and that’s your opening to feed in facts in a neutral way. They also serve who fight the blog wars.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 12:57 PM











Oath for Senators

Oath of Office



Oath info at Wiki

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 01:59 PM



Preamble Constitution

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 02:03 PM


When the government predicts another terrorist attack and doesn’t stop Muslim immigration its violating the preamble of the Constitution.

==Paul Begala calls Virgil Goode a bigot.

People die so that Begala can get Democrats elected, or so Begala thinks. Americans shouldn’t die so that the Democratic Party can elect its candidates. The consequence of Muslim immigration is that Americas die. The government says that itself. Saving American lives is not bigotry.

Begala is trading American lives for what he believes will get them votes. Begala deserves neither votes nor to be called anything but tragically mistaken in time of war.


barbara.swisher | Dec 21, 2006 5:25:01 PM is right.
quote Stanley_98. Youve got it right mate! end quote

By greenhead | Dec 21, 2006 5:43:58 PM is right. After Pearl Harbor we stopped immigration. We were attacked at WTC by immigrants in 1993 and again in 2001. We should stop immigration until the war is over, just as we did after Pearl Harbor. We didn’t have immigration from Russia during the Cold War. This is no different.

WaPo Comments


David Asman: So you do believe there’re too many Middle Easterners here now?(brief pause)

Rep. Virgil Goode: No, I — I said there — and the Diversity Visa program needs to be ended. It shouldn’t have been adopted to begin with, in my opinion.

Asman: But do you think there are too many Middle Easterners in the United States right now?

(brief pause)

Goode: Uh — I’m not gonna say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on that. I’d like to know the exact number. I don’t have the exact numbers.

Each person is limited to how far they can state the truth beyond the PC boundary. It falls off like the tail of the Gaussian distribution.

Goode has gone well over his limit of truth telling, which is why the PC-pecking hunters are after him.

PC: a method by which all liberals keep all people in a state of fear. (modified from Firing Line debate)


Actually it falls off like a modified Bessel function, the MacDonald Function, but that’s being technical.


Is it moral to instead of bombing people in Iraq to instead deny the same people immigration to the US? If we catch them there we can kill them, but if they make it here they can get in? Is that superior morality to not letting them in here but not bombing there?

Lest it be said this is an absurd question, Bush, our “Religion of Peace” President, has said that we have to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here. So its a fair question, is it right to stop immigration here so as to reduce our need to kill them there? Or is it morally wrong to do anything that reduces the pressure on us to kill them there?


The above point shows that morality may be trickier during time of war than the time it takes to cry bigot, let loose the dogs of PC war.


Should an entire airbase in the US with bombers with nuclear weapons be turned over to immigrants from the Middle East?

If the answer is no, are you a bigot?

Even if they swear an oath on the Koran?


Why is it moral to let people come here and kill people here in 1993 and then let more people come here and kill people here in 2001? Isn’t this the Mineta Bush defense?

After 9-11, Mineta said no profiling is moral. Bush agrees. Then we learn Bush had a PDB warning him, “bin Laden determined to attack in the United States.”

Why is it moral for Bush to call those who wanted to stop immigration in 1996 before the 19 hijackers came here legally bigot or Begala? Begala’s Clinton is the one who let them in after WTC 1993 attack? Why can Begala call the victims of his mistake in the 1990’s bigots, but he is a good person to have ignored the attack on the US in 1993 at the WTC?

Why is it right to let people attack WTC in 1993 and do nothing and respond in 2001 to the same people by invading 2 countries? Which is right?

Isn’t the bigot word used to avoid answering this question? Isn’t this just part of the 9-11 coverup, the use of this word bigot?

Aren’t we hearing the samething we heard from Peter Jennings, Mineta and Bush on 9-11, that the people who said stop immigration after WTC 1993 were bigots?

All 3 of them knew more than the average Joe about the threat. None of them warned the average Joe. Why?

Why does Begala threaten to call anyone, including the families of 9-11, bigots for saying no immigration after WTC 93, WTC and Pentagon 2001 ?

Some 9-11 families have called for ending or limiting immigration especially of Muslims. Why doesn’t Begala call them bigots?

Why is it right for Cindy Sheehan to go to Venzuela to call Bush names for her son, but wrong for the 9-11 families to stay in America and say no more immigration?

Why is it right to complain after your family members are killed but not before? How do you complain for yourself? Do you tape a message saying stop immigration, play this after I’m dead? Would that be bigoted because you thought you might be killed by Muslims?

Why are we told that Muslims are going to attack us from within again?

Why do we have immigration from Pakistan which teaches hate of Americans? Same for Saudi Arabia? They teach hate in their elementary schools? Its homework? Should they be let in? Given control over nuclear equiped bombers?

Is it bigotry to keep them from controlling our bombers?

Is it bigotry to deny security clearances to people with families in China or Pakistan? They do it now. Why no cries that this is bigotry?

Why no cry of bigotry when immigrants kill Americans?

Why no cry of bigotry when immigrants give night vision or stealth secrets to China?

Why isn’t it bigotry when American soldiers are killed or maimed by American night vision given to China by Chinese grad students or H-1B’s? Why isn’t that bigotry?


Which is morally superior, to ignore a PDB on your desk on August 6, 2001 saying bin Laden determined to attack in the United States, do nothing, let him attack, then praise Islam as the Religion of Peace, then cover up the role of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not publish the 28 pages in 2003 from the Congressional inquiry linking Saudi Arabia to the financing of 9-11, have a commission the families said was a whitewash, and invade another country Iraq or to say what Goode said?

According to Begala, Goode is beyond the pale, stop Muslim immigration, but what Bush, Norman Mineta, Clinton, Democrats and Republicans did is all fine.

Why is Goode a bigot? But torture is ok as long as you have Korans at Gitmo and don’t flush them down the toilet?

Why is paying off Russia in the 1990’s ok, and concealing it from the USAO Mass, and then letting Pakistan and India do their nuke tests, and all the rest ok? Why is Clinton raping a woman ok? Why is Goode wrong but Clinton right? Why does Begala call Goode a bigot for saying stop Muslim immigration, but calls Clinton friend after a woman comes forward about his raping them while State Attorney General of Arkansas?

If you are in the Club that’s what matters. Goode isn’t in the clubs. Neither were the people in WTC or the Pentagon who couldn’t make it out. Neither are our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who is killing them and why? Does Begala know?

==What isn’t called bigotry:

  1. Letting in the 19 hijackers after WTC 1993 attack, and other warnings.
  2. Not going on a war footing after the WTC 1993 attack.
  3. Not responding to the August 6, 2001 briefing, bin Laden determined to attack in the US.
  4. Chinese immigrants who give US night vision to China.
  5. Indian immigrant who gives US stealth to China.
  6. Foreign profs who don’t give good letters of recommendation to American undergrads for Ph.D. programs but instead admit students of their former profs in their home country.
  7. Later when those same students contribute to giving our secrets or know-how to China.
  8. Letting our night vision end up in the hands of insurgents who use it to kill and maim our troops.
  9. Doing the above in time of war.
  10. Doing the above 13 years after the WTC 1993 attack.
  11. Doing the above 27 years after the 1979 hostage taking in Iran.
  12. Letting Pakistan get nuclear weapons.
  13. Covering up the involvement of Saudi Arabia in financing the Taliban, before, during and after 9-11.
  14. Covering up the involvement of Pakistan in supporting the Taliban, before, during, and after 9-11.
  15. Calling bigot those who wanted to stop immigration when you had classified information all during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s about Muslim plots to kill Americans.
  16. Calling bigot the victims of 9-11 or their families.
  17. Issuing warnings of terrorist attacks by Muslims and calling those who want to stop the immigration of the same people, bigot.
  18. Calling the victims of Muslims engaged in genocide of Christians in Lebanon and Bethlehem bigots for pointing out how its rooted in the Koran.
  19. Concealing that the Armenian genocide was done by Muslims against Christians from those who don’t realize that.
  20. Lying or covering up decisions of Saudi judges that they say is based on the Koran or Islam.
  21. The same for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.
  22. Concealing polls from the general public that show non-PC conforming results by Muslims in foreign lands or in the country of immigration.
  23. Not showing Danish Cartoons.
  24. Asking for ritualistic Stalinist Maoist Leftist Orwellian denunciations of people you agree with.
  25. Being put on the spot, after your guy is called a bigot by Begala, of either saying he is a bigot, or losing your career, and having people hang out around your house or school perhaps.
  26. Pretending that there are not Danish Cartoonists in hiding.
  27. Asking Bay Buchanan to denounce Goode as a bigot when CNN was afraid to show the Danish Cartoons for fear of violence against CNN people by Muslims around the world.
  28. Asking people to denounce people on their side, when they know that Danish Cartoonists, French school teachers, politicians, moderate Muslims, Rushdie, authors, etc. are in hiding under death threats for saying the same things as Virgil Goode said.
  29. Pretending that people who denounce Goode while Danish Cartoonists are under death threat are doing so under their own free will.
  30. Pretending that its ok to ask someone to say Goode is a bigot on CNN while there are people in hiding for denouncing Islam or Muhammed.
  31. Pretending that its ok to call Goode a bigot while others are in hiding for saying bad things about Islam.
  32. Talking about Goode’s statement on CNN without saying that CNN was afraid to publish the Cartoons and still doesn’t have them on their website because they have correspondents in Muslim countries who they don’t want killed.
  33. Talking about Goode’s statement on CNN and not admitting that CNN might lose all its offices in every Muslim country if it put the Danish Cartoons on its website.
  34. Making Bay Buchanan denounce Goode while this is going on and pretending its friendly chatter.
  35. Pretending that putting Bay Buchanan in the position of defending Goode was not something that CNN was afraid to do for the Danish Cartoonists and our freedom.
  36. Calling those who have the courage to criticize Islam or Muhammed or call for stopping Muslim immigration when CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, MSM, etc. were afraid to publish the Cartoons.
  37. Selling out Western Civilization because they are afraid of Muslim violence and have shown it by not publishing the Cartoons.
  38. Being afraid to say the Danish Cartoonists had the right to mock Muhammed and Islam while they were receiving death threats.


Thank you Vashine for telling us this. History is made by one person at a time, or two or three at a time. One person can make a difference.

One witness to the truth can change the world, if they have the courage to speak up, and the ability to repeat it endlessly even though nothing seems to happen, no one thanks you, and you never see anything come of it.

Thank you Vashine.

Thank you Virgil Goode.

Thank you Hugh, Robert and fellow posters.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 09:06 PM



“just said NO”

Just say no to Iran having Nukes.

Just say no to Pakistan keeping nukes.

Just say no to Pakistan putting nukes on missiles on subs off our shores.

Just say no to A Q Khan’s getting their Ph.D.’s in Belgium and taking the secrets of nukes back.

Just say no to not publishing the 28 pages of the Congressional report on Saudi Arabia’s links to financing al Qaeda and 9-11.

Just say no to keeping Pakistan’s role in terrorirsm hidden.

Just say no to PC.

Just say no to Muslim immigration.

Just say no to Islam.

Just say yes to truth.

Thank you Caroline for this phrase and thought.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 21, 2006 09:33 PM


Islam is an idea, and you can criticize an idea. That’s in the Constitution. Its in John Locke. Its in Magna Carta. Its in the Bible, just look under truth. Just look under free. You know what free is, don’t you Begala?

I have a dream that one day we shall be free of Islam and the fear of Islam. One day Danish Cartoonists will come out of hiding, join hand in hand with Arab Christians and former Muslims and sing, Free at Last, Free at Last, Thank God Almighty, Free at Last.



Now that you bring up diversity, Robert Putnam of Harvard has done a study of diversity. Diversity reduces trust not just between groups but even within groups.

Men’s median wages are lower than they were in 1973 due to the 1965 Immigration Act. That might have something to do with it too.

Black men’s labor participation rate has fallen from 1960 to 2006 and prison incarceration rates gone up dramatically. See Steve Sailer at Vdare for that and Borjas of Harvard.

Maybe even 9-11 and all the coverups and shouting bigot after each terrorist incident instead of stopping immigration also pushes trust down.


Amendment I – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

From wiki Caliphate


The Caliphate (Arabic خلافة Khilafah) is an Islamic federal government which represents political leadership and unity of the Muslim world (Ummah) applying Islamic law (Shariah). The Caliph is the term for the head of state and it is the only form of government sanctioned in traditional Islamic theology.

end quote

The US first Amendment violates Islam. Islam has the unification of religion and state.

Muhammed and the Caliphs were head of religion and head of state in one person.

The Koran was written in 656 AD during the Caliphate and under its direction.

From wiki on Qu’ran


When at the Battle of Yamama in 633 AD a number of Muslims were killed it was feared that part of the revelations might be lost. Therefore, Abu Bakr, the first Muslim leader after Muhammad’s death, asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collect all the different writing materials on which the Quran was written down.

end quote

This may be too subtle to notice what this implies. 633 AD is when Islam as a unified state and religion single entity attacked the Eastern Roman Empire, the Western superpower, which was Christian and Jewish. The reason they had to write down the Koran was because by attacking the West they were losing their own men in battle. So they had to write down the Koran between conquests.

It was finished in 656 AD while they were occupying provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire they had conquered. The Caliphs made sure the Koran commanded Muslims to do everything they had done from the attack on the Eastern Roman Empire and to Christians and Jews, everything they were doing and everything they might want to do.

After they wrote it they went back to conquering more provinces of the Roman Empire, and killing and genociding Christians, Jews, Hindus and others. That has continued to the present day. They wrote it in 656 AD to command Muslims to do all those things. That was the intended use because they were in occupation and wanted to keep conquering, which they did. The people doing the conquering were in control of the writing of the Koran.

That covers everything up to and after 9-11.

The security code for this entry is fear, how appropriate. Islam if used as intended by Muslims is supposed to create fear in all non-Muslims everywhere.



I had no idea.”

Because MSM doesn’t tell you the truth about immigration any more than Islam. See Jihad Watch for the latter, and Lou Dobbs and Vdare for the former.

“Those are the usual explanations offered for the failure of real wages to keep up, or the increase in incarceration rates for black men.”

Borjas has done a study on precisely the impact of immigration on economic opportunity of Black men and precisely on their incarceration rates. You can go to his webpage at Harvard and download it.

“Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks” September 2006.

You probably didn’t hear of this Harvard study, praised by Greg Mankiw (you know who he is right?) on Mankiw’s blog.

The link by my name has links to Borjas and to Vdare. Search Vdare Borjas for a layman’s guide.
Posted by: Old Atlantic






“Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks” September 2006.
from George J. Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger, Gordon H. Hanson

“The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skill black men, fell precipitously from 1960 to 2000. At the same time, the incarceration rate of black men rose markedly. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in black employment and incarceration. Using data drawn from the 1960-2000 U.S. Censuses, we find a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates. As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 3.6 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 2.4 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point.”

See link on my name for link to source.

The security code is nose, again how appropriate.


Back to the Koran and oath taking. The Koran was written down because on a battlefield in 633 AD, a battle of Islam as a single political-military-religious entity’s choice, some of its soldiers died, and they had bits of Muhammed’s sayings memorized.

So they started writing them down. By 656 AD they had a version. By that time they had conquered provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and were occupying them.

So they got it from people off the battlefield from 633 AD. That makes it a battle field manual. The Koran is the battle field manual of the attack on the Christian and Jewish Eastern Roman Empire, the Western Superpower, from 633 AD onwards.

So taking the oath on the Koran is like taking an oath during WWII on the German Army’s Battle Field Manual, in German. A Congressman who wanted to do that in 1944, or even 1947, would not have been allowed to take his seat.

The Koran is the battle field manual of the attack of the single unitary religious-military-political entity Islam on the Western superpower from a battlefield of the war in 633 AD on the Western Superpower.

We are the Western Superpower. So the Koran is the battle field manual of the war on us. That war has had as recent battles, the 1979 embassy attack in Iran, the 1993 WTC attack, the 1998 embassy attacks, the 2000 Cole attack, the 9-11 WTC and Pentagon attacks. Note that 2 of those attacks were on embassies.

Our Congressmen should not take an oath of the battle field manual of what is attacking us. Its what attacked us in 633 AD, the Christian Jewish Western Superpower, and on 9-11 2001 AD, the Christian Jewish Western Superpower. That’s us.

And if you want to include Hindus and anyone else, Islam’s been attacking them too.


Caroline, good points on Jihad Watch’s contribution to the education of Lawrence Auster. Robert Spencer runs Jihad Watch on the self-discovery method. He tries to hold back on forcing conclusions on us, and just lets us debate in the seminar room.

The result is we come to the conclusions that Hugh, Auster, Vashine, Virgil Goode, etc. come to.

As you and Foehammer point out, Virgil Goode is the Puritan soul to lead us out of the Inferno after a dose of Common Sense at Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Old Atlantic [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 22, 2006 12:22 AM



“Men’s median wages are lower than they were in 1973 due to the 1965 Immigration Act. … Black men’s labor participation rate has fallen from 1960 to 2006 and prison incarceration rates gone up dramatically.”

All because of immigration? You mean it doesn’t have anything to do with inflation, or budget deficits,

Inflation as a cause of median wage changes (after adjusting for inflation) over a 30+ time interval is not causal for any economic theory I am aware of. Nor for labor force participation rate of a segment like Black men.

Some of your other variables can have a causal role, of course.

My security code word is rate, which seems appropriate for this note.



Good points. Being against Muslim immigration is a position to be debated, not one excluded without discussion.

PC Police like Saudi Religious Police say that the conclusion must be agreed to first, (without discussion) and the debate held afterwards, if its allowed, which in this case its not.


BTW the Founding Fathers would never permit Muslim immigration while Americans were held as slaves and being crucified. This was actually the case, the Barbary Pirates, actually foreign Muslim governments, were doing just that.

They also wouldn’t have allowed a Muslim to be a member of Congress and take an oath on the Koran while Americans were being snatched off the high seas to be slaves in the name of Islam’s war on the West and Christianity, which they were c. 1800.

1800 Christian Americans taken hostage and made slaves in North Africa.

c. 1900 Ditto.

2001. Americans, Christians and Jews killed on 9-11 at WTC (2nd try by new group of Muslim immigrants from after WTC 93 first try) and Pentagon (First Try).

Projection by 2100: tens of millions of Americans killed by Muslim nuclear weapons, they called it the Muslim bomb themselves in Pakistan as one Hindu reader pointed out at Jihad Watch I think. Europe under Sharia law. America occupied and under Sharia law after it surrenders to the Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia sub flotilla armed with nukes on missiles.

Why would we surrender? Isn’t that what we are debating now? A country that acts like America has convinced the Muslim countries it will surrender. Immigration convinces them they are winning and we won’t fight for Christianity, Atheism, Judaism or Hinduism. They say all the time, we convince them we are surrender material.

So they think they can launch nukes from their subs and we will give up without a fight. Why would we do anything that could lead to our deaths, when we could just surrender? Immigration is surrender. So they think it means surrender to a nuclear attack by them.

They don’t see mutual assured destruction, they see multiculturally assured dhimmis.

We have let Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia get away with anything they wanted, even attacking us and we’ve always surrendered meekly.  After 9-11, we’ve covered up for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and given them airlifts out of America and Kunduz respectively, after they were linked to fighting us here and there.  We are Dhimmi cowards and surrenderers.  They can nuke us and we won’t do anything.  We’ve proven it over and over.

We are going to talk ourselves into being nuked by attacking Goode and letting Keith Ellison take the oath on the Koran.  Americans are going to die because of that.   They will attack us because they think its a form of surrender.  The attacks on Goode make that worse.

That’s how they think.  Bin Laden said it in his fatwa or elsewhere.  They think we are Dhimmi Surrender Cowards.  The President of Iran says that all the time.   That’s all we show to them.

We don’t stand up for Danish Cartoonists, for Goode, for Christianity, for Judaism, for anything we say we believe in.  We set up Islamic Republics in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. we surrendered.  Bush’s religion of peace speech was a surrender speech. We are contemptible to them.

Immigration is surrender to them. Qaddafi said so.

This post is speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: