Stand your ground, Congressman Goode
0 comment Friday, October 24, 2014 |
I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district. And, if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."
Those are the words of Rep. Virgil Goode, of Virginia, and the occasion of the latest fit of feigned outrage from CAIR.
Goode was discussing the recent controversy over the use of the Koran for the upcoming swearing-in of Keith Ellison, the Congressman-elect from Minnesota.
Goode's remarks were written to a constituent back home who had expressed concerns about the use of the Koran in the swearing-in ceremony.
On CNN's 'Lou Dobbs Tonight', this story was covered in a report from Brian Todd. I found his reportage a little snide and biased, for example:
Brian Todd reports from Rocky Mount, Virginia -- Brian.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kitty, Congressman Virgil Goode is pretty unrepentant at this hour.
[...]Now, Mr. Goode, as we said a moment ago, is not repentant at all. He said he is not going to apologize for that letter.
We pressed him at a news conference just a short time ago on whether he favors Mr. Ellison being able to use the Koran. He had danced around that. We pressed him on it.''
I notice that Brian Todd used the word 'unrepentant' in describing Goode. He could have used the word 'unapologetic,' since he notes that Goode has said he won't apologize, But he chose the word 'unrepentant'. Odd, I think, that Todd uses the language of religion here: one 'repents' of sin. And having repented, one begs forgiveness. Does Todd think that Goode's words and his subsequent lack of apologies are 'sinful'? Evidently so: repentance implies sin. And what is a supposedly objective reporter doing calling for repentance, or couching this situation in religious terms?
I've often said that Political Correctness is a quasi-religion, and that being 'bigoted' is now viewed as a worse transgression than almost any other, short of murder. Actually, I think murder is much easier for liberals to overlook or excuse than 'hate' or 'bigotry.' So now, when somebody makes a faux pas which violates the sacred precepts of PC, the sinner is required to repent, confess publicly, and seek forgiveness of the offended Victims, in this case 'the Muslim community'. Now each victim 'community' has its high priests who have the power to grant forgiveness and absolution, or to withhold it, depending on the sincerity of the confession and apology, or just depending on their whim. For an offense against the 'Muslim community', one has to seek the absolution from CAIR. And usually some amends have to be made: money must change hands in some cases, just as in the old days in the Catholic Church in which indulgences could be bought.
We've just seen this little kabuki dance happen with Michael Richards, in the aftermath of his outburst against the hecklers. He had to go to some lengths to redeem himself and cleanse himself of his 'sin'. And before that, it was the Mel Gibson scandal. In Gibson's case, too, amends had to be made and considerable humbling of the offender was required.
Mind you, I don't consider Virgil Goode in the same category as an entertainer who, in a moment of anger or inebriation, says something vulgar and rude. Not at all. I think Goode gave an honest answer to a constituent and I think his willingness to stick by his comments indicates integrity and character. I will be disappointed if he caves, as so many public figures have so readily done, at the first sign of complaint from the supposed 'victim'.
The backtracking by Pope Benedict in the wake of Moslem outrage at his comments about Islam was a big disappointment to many of us. We live in an age wherein many people presume some kind of right never to be offended, and an even greater right to rudely demand apologies, even when the 'offender' was not in the wrong.
Those who too readily offer apologies and truckle to the 'victim' are showing weakness which is usually exploited to the max.
I truly hope that Goode does not apologize, or qualify what he said, or in any way humble himself. He has a right, in America, to express his honest thoughts, and there is nothing 'Islamophobic' about expressing a desire to resist the inroads of Islam, and to preserve the existing character of this country.
And I applaud him especially for mentioning immigration in conjunction with the Islamic threat in America. How many politicians have the courage to do that? It's the third rail that nobody will touch.
Our electeds have got to get over their fear, if that's what it is, that causes them to avoid the issue of mass immigration, and to refuse to consider the possibility that Islam may have to be contained and immigration from Moslem countries restricted. Of course Goode has not said anything that definite, but he is on the right track.
If only there were more like him in public office.
Instead, there are a whole lot more like Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. , D-New Jersey, politicians who feign outrage on behalf of their 'Muslim-American' constituents. Rep. Pascrell apparently feels no obligation to his non-Moslem constituents, who presumably must still outnumber the Mohammedans. Pascrell is the poster boy for the truckling, pandering politicians who sit in seats of power now.
Whether the Pascrells or the Goodes predominate will determine the future of America as we know it.

Labels: ,