The Seamless Thread of Hate: The Beltway Sniper Shootings and Islam

After having been constantly told that the sniper was a white, Christian male, we are confronted with a main suspect who is a "military veteran" (mumble, black Moslem, mumble). Although the suspects are both black, we have been told by white, liberal journalists such as Pete Hamill and black civilians alike, that black folks really don't need this to be about race. And although we know that John Allen Muhammad/Williams is a Moslem, we now know that not only race, but Islam was a non-factor in the sniper case. We know that, because Al Sharpton told us so. Sharpton demanded that the arrests of John Allen Muhammad/Williams and Boyd Lee Malvo aka John Lee Malvo not be used as an excuse to "profile blacks or Moslems." But it's alright by him, to profile whites.

Min. Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI), has admitted that Muhammad/Williams has been a member of the NOI since 1997. (Farrakhan added, that if Williams/Muhammad should turn be convicted as the Beltway Sniper, he will be "ousted" from the NOI; we'll have to wait and see on that one.) In a previous column, I touched on the murderous world of the NOI, which teaches that man was originally black, and that the white man was created 6,000 years ago by an evil black scientist named Yacub. In his book, Prophet of Rage: A Life of Louis Farrakhan and His Nation, Arthur Magida argues that "Violence was indispensable to the culture of the Nation of Islam. It was not only in the environment; it was the environment."

The NOI has also always been anti-American, as well as anti-white. Its founder, Wallace Fard, was anti-American, and as C. Eric Lincoln chronicles in his classic work, The Black Muslims in America, its longtime leader, the Hon. Elijah Muhammad (Elijah Poole, 1897-1975, aka The Messenger, who led the then-named Black Muslims from circa 1934 until his death.) spent most of World War II in prison for draft evasion and sedition, for refusing to serve in the armed forces, and for openly supporting our Japanese enemies.

During the Vietnam War, Elijah Muhammad talked heavyweight champion Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali into refusing to serve his country. Many journalists and documentarians – who otherwise spit on religious freedom – have since blackwashed Clay/Ali's draft evasion, for which he was imprisoned and stripped of his heavyweight championship, into a violation of his religious freedom, and romanticized his treasonous statement, "I ain't got nothin' against no Viet Cong." Such supporters of the NOI have steadfastly ignored the fact that only those may refuse induction into the armed services on religious grounds who are members of pacifist denominations, such as the Society of Friends (Quakers). Islam is the most bellicose of religions, and while one may debate whether the NOI is a legitimate Moslem denomination, it can hardly be debated that it has adopted the most warlike aspects of Islam.

The current leader of the Nation of Islam, Min. Louis Farrakhan, has embraced America's enemies, including Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, and Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Supporting America's military enemies is an unbroken tradition of the NOI.

We are now told that the snipers' letters were infused with the language of the Five Percenters (not merely the phrase "word is bond," which is widely used, beyond the hellish circles of the Five Percenters), particularly the phrase, "Call me God." This news has provided yet another opportunity to spread disinformation about black supremacism.

According to Associated Press reporter Tim Molloy, "the Five Percent movement ... teaches that education and family are of central importance. It rejects drinking, drugs and fornication, as well as most accepted history, authority and religion."

Molloy continues, "The 39-year-old [sic] movement started as an offshoot of the Nation of Islam, but Five Percenters say they are not Muslims. The group teaches that black men are to be called 'God' and black women 'Earth,' and that only five percent of the population is enlightened."

In reality, the Five Percenters are ultraviolent criminals who believe that all of the Earth shall perish, save for five percent, which suggests that at least half of all blacks will die, in addition to all whites and Asians. So much for the claim that the Five Percenters see all black men as gods. Tim Molloy knows enough about the group, to be aware that it is concerned with genocide, not "enlightenment."

Far from being family-oriented, and being opposed to fornication, the Five Percenters are notorious for maintaining harems of young women, whom they "turn out" – force to work as prostitutes. Some family values.

Five Percenter men believe in the ownership of women. During the late 1980s, a very smart foster-care supervisor (they are oh, so rare) of mine, an American-born daughter of Chinese parents who had fled Mao, had previously run group homes in Brooklyn, filled mainly with teenaged black girls. Some of those girls became the girlfriends and prostitutes of Five Percenters. My supervisor would recall, "They would have to wear [the boyfriend/pimps' tooth] caps. I tried to tell them, 'Someday, you're going to want to want to break up with him, and he's not going to let you go.'"

Note too that the Five Percenter emphasis on "education" consists in scholarship such as a member being given a magic word, and walking around with a notebook "studying" the word all day long. Five Percenters have magical beliefs about words and numbers.

The AP's Tim Molloy cites as an authority on the Five Percenters consultant Robert Walker, "a former prison security coordinator and Drug Enforcement Administration agent, [who] stressed that most people involved in the movement have nothing to do with crime." Again, in reality, Five Percenters have sought to take over prisons through reigns of violence, control of contraband, and conspiracies to attack guards. I'd like to have some of whatever it is Walker is smoking.

The Five Percenters were founded in 1964 by "Clarence 13X" (Clarence Smith, 1929-1969), who had been thrown out of Malcolm X' Harlem, Black Muslim Temple No. 7. In 1969, Smith was murdered; his killers were never brought to justice.

The current, official teachings of the Five Percenters aka the "Nation of Gods [black men] and Earths [black women]" follow:

"3. That the science of Supreme Mathematics is the key to understanding man's relationship to the universe.

"5. That education should be fashioned to enable us to be self sufficient as a people.

"7. That the blackman is god and his proper name is ALLAH. Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head.

"8. That our children are our link to the future and they must be nurtured, respected, loved, protected and educated.

The AP's Tim Molloy reports that consultant Robert Walker said that, "Five Percenters typically end letters with the word, 'peace,' which group members mean as an abbreviation for 'please elevate all children everywhere.'

"The letter's postscript had no such good wishes: 'Your children are not safe anywhere at anytime.'"

Walker rendered the Five Percenters' meaning literally: Their good wishes are, however, for Five Percenters' children, certainly not for white children. Without knowing Tim Molloy's agenda, one might think him honest, or perhaps naively incompetent. Molloy, however, has a history of shilling for racist, black murderers. In 2000, he published a propaganda piece for AP disguised as a news report, in which he gave former boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter a soapbox from which to claim that he and Mumia Abu Jamal (Wesley Cook) were both victims of racist, white law enforcement officials, who had framed them under the orders of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Carter, who had a long history of violent crime, was convicted in two separate trials for the 1966, racial revenge murder of three whites in a New Jersey bar. Although Carter was never acquitted, in an act of blatant judicial misconduct, in 1985 federal Judge Lee Sarokin vacated Carter's conviction. (4* Former Black Panther Jamal/Cook was convicted and sentenced to death for his 1981, execution-style murder of Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner.) Tim Molloy neglected to mention that J. Edgar Hoover, who died in 1972, would have to have directed the conspiracy against Jamal/Cook from the grave.

Note that the Five Percenters do not call themselves a religion. But that has not stopped leftwing groups who are hostile towards Christianity and Judaism, and journalists like Tim Molloy from presenting them as a denomination whose religious freedom is being trampled on. Of course, these are the same folks who for forty years have used "civil rights" as a front for their support of violent, black street criminals.

Although the Five Percenters were founded by a former member of the Nation of Islam, in this context, "Islam" must be seen as part of black supremacism. Back in 1913, "Noble Drew Ali" (Timothy Drew, 1866-1916) founded the precursor to the Nation of Islam, the Moorish Science Temple, in Newark, New Jersey. The Moorish Science Temple spread to other cities. Although Ali/Drew had a "Holy Koran," it was simply a compendium of his black supremacist beliefs, and had no connection to Islam. The Nation of Islam, which was founded around 1930 in Detroit by Wallace Fard (1903?-1934?) combined some Islamic beliefs with the personal hatreds of its leaders, and the belief that Wallace Fard was the incarnation of Allah. (Ali/Drew was murdered by followers in a power struggle; although the body of Fard, who "disappeared," was never found, I believe that he met the same fate at the hands of Elijah Muhammad.)

Note that though the Five Percenters' and NOI's respective understandings of G-d are incompatible, the NOI has shown solidarity with the Five Percenters. Both groups are oriented towards violent black criminals, and committed to the destruction of the white race, and of America. (Both the Nation of Islam and secular black supremacists such as Frances Cress Welsing, author of The Isis Papers, depict all non-whites as black, though black supremacists are far from consistent on this point, especially regarding Asians.) For the same reasons, secularist black groups support the NOI and Five Percenters. The term "Afrocentrism" (the successor to "Black Power") provides an umbrella for cooperation among all such racist – including hip-hop "musicians" and black supremacist "educators" – and anti-American black groups and individuals.

It has also been reported that John Allen Muhammad/Williams is an al Qaeda supporter, who expressed his solidarity with the 911 attackers. As some writers have observed, particularly in (the case of Egyptian July 4 terrorist Hesham Muhammad Ali Hadayet), who murdered two Jews and wounded several other people at the LAX Airport El Al counter, one does not have to formally be a member of al Qaeda, in order to work for the group. Osama bin Laden has called on all Moslems to engage in terrorism.

It is far from clear, however, that Muhammad/Williams was a freelancer. At his arrest, he was in the possession of a laptop computer and a global positioning system (GPS), and he had altered his car to hide a sniper in the trunk, who would shoot through a hole in the trunk door, as per an innovation of the terrorist, Irish Republican Army (IRA). Terrorist groups have been known to share methods and train each other's members.

On the eve of, and just after Muhammad/Williams and Malvo's arrest, some journalists (among them New York Fox 5's Dick Brennan) suggested – based on law enforcement sources – that the two might be part of a cell. The silence on this theory since then does not mean that it has been discredited. Based on the quiet, polite way John Allen Muhammad/Williams has comported himself since his arrest, it would not surprise me, if he were to announce that he sees himself as not a criminal, but a soldier.

That the beliefs that Muhammad/Williams has suggested having are incoherent and incompatible – Islam, Five Percenterism, Nation of Islam – is not a problem. All have in common their consuming, homicidal hatred, which is a great unifier. Consider that like Islamic nations, and the black American groups cited above, many Islamic fundamentalist and secular terrorist groups have incompatible beliefs and goals, yet their unifying hatred for the U.S. and Israel makes mutual cooperation among them possible. Note that Muhammad/Williams did not kill anyone who appeared to be any type of Moslem or black supremacist.

In an otherwise informative article in the October 27 New York Times, David Johnston and Don van Natta Jr. claimed that Muhammad/Williams and Malvo turned the typical serial killer profile on its head, because serial killers usually start out slowly, tentatively, and increase their appetite for killing, whereas Muhammad/Williams and Malvo had started out fast and slowed down. However, it looks as though the duo had already had their "warm-up" period. They are suspected in the February 16 murder, in Tacoma, Washington, of Keenya Cook, and Muhammad/Williams has been identified by Officer Dwight Johnson as the shooter in the September 21 killing, in Montgomery Alabama, of Claudine Parker and near fatal shooting of Kellie Adams. The Bushmaster rifle that was found in the suspects' possession, has also been linked to at least one murder in Baton Rouge, LA. (The New York Times article was also oddly remiss in failing, in its recitation of serial and mass murders, to mention the Zebra Killings.)

Montgomery, Alabama police Chief John Wilson has reported that Muhammad/Williams and Malvo jumped into the infamous blue Chevrolet Caprice, which was being driven by a third party.

Muhammad/Williams is suspected in many killings, besides those of the guns of October, and many other crimes, including selling false Antiguan passports and smuggling illegal aliens into the U.S. from Antigua, including, possibly, Malvo's mother. While staying with Malvo in the Lighthouse Mission, a Bellingham, Washington homeless shelter, Muhammad/Williams regularly received airline tickets from a travel agent for jaunts around the U.S., according to the Rev. Al Archer, the shelter's director. Like other people who knew Muhammad/Williams, the Rev. Archer alerted the FBI to his suspicious behavior long before the Beltway Sniper killings, but was ignored by the Bureau.

While many questions remain about the Beltway Sniper Killings, the notion that we can rest assured that we are dealing with an isolated madman and his young acolyte, is supported by blind hope alone.

As at least one writer observed during the killings, that the notion that serial murderers are overwhelmingly white, is a multicultural myth. In a nation which is 78 percent white, the official statistic that 55 percent of serial and mass murderers are white, is underwhelming.

What's that you say – America is only 72 percent white? America is 72 percent "non-Hispanic" white; there is no justification for cutting Hispanic whites, who comprise six percent of the population, out of the white census. Note, too that for purposes of racial misrepresentation, crimes committed by Hispanics (white and non-white alike) are often counted as having been committed by whites. Thus, the real percentage of white mass murderers may be a bit lower. In other words, whites are severely underrepresented among the population of serial murderers. (And as my previous column noted, many black serial killers are not counted as such.)

The myth that a serial killer is bound to be white and Christian, is something white Christians really don't need right now.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Nicholas at adddda@earthlink.net .

"Please to meet you, Landru."

Really?
Good.
Let us cut to the chase then, shall we?

-----------------------------------------

David Horowitz Critiques AR

David Horowitz

The cover story of the August issue of AR was the first comprehensive account of the Wichita Massacre to appear in any publication. We thought the story was so important we released it in electronic form on the day AR went into the mail. Several web sites posted it, including David Horowitz's Front PageMag.com, which ran a version that edited out some of the more explicitly racialist commentary. Mr. Horowitz himself wrote a friendly and generous disclaimer justifying his decision to post an article from a publication many would call "racist." It is reproduced below.

Jared Taylor's reply

David Horowitz on AR

In the editorial I wrote to accompany today's lead story on the Wichita Massacre, I said "In the present atmosphere of racial hypocrisy, the mere expression of concern over attacks on white people would in itself make an individual a target for racial witch-hunters." I could also have said that publishing a story from the American Renaissance newsletter would do the same.

The American Renaissance group is a creation of Jared Taylor, author of a pioneer book of political incorrectness on race called Paved With Good Intentions. Taylor is a very smart and gutsy individualist, but he is also a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and community. We do not share these agendas.
What I mean by "surrendering" is that Taylor has accepted the idea that the multi-culturalists have won. We are all prisoners of identity politics now. If there is going to be Black History Month and Chicano Studies then there should be White History Month and White Studies. If blacks and Mexicans are going to regard each other as brothers and the rest of us as "Anglos," then whites should regard each other as brothers and others as-well, . . . others. Within the multicultural framework set by the dominant liberalism in our civic culture, Taylor's claim to a white place at the diversity table certainly makes sense. But there is another option and that is getting rid of the table altogether and going back to the good old American ideal of E Pluribus Unum-"out of many one." Not just blacks and whites and Chicanos, but Americans. Jared Taylor is a very intelligent and principled man. But I believe he is mistaken on this matter, and even if he is right I would rather fight against the multicultural behemoth and be on the losing side than embrace a false faith and win.

There are many who would call Jared Taylor and his American Renaissance movement "racist." If the term is modified to "racialist," there is truth in the charge. But Taylor and his Renaissance movement are no more racist in this sense than Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. In my experience of Taylor's views, which is mainly literary (we have had occasion to exchange opinions in person only once), they do not represent a mean-spirited position. They are an attempt to be realistic about a fate that seems to have befallen us (which Taylor would maintain was inevitable given the natural order of things). But Jared Taylor is no more "racist" in this sense than any university Afro-centrist or virtually any black pundit of the left. He is not even racist in the sense that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist. He is-as noted-a racialist, which Front pagemag.com is not.

I make no apologies, therefore, for posting this piece of journalism. It is an accurate and profoundly important report about an event with which every American should be familiar, and whose implications every American should ponder.

-----------------------------------------

Reply to David Horowitz
by Jared Taylor

I have long admired Mr. Horowitz's efforts to expose the double standards and ethnic shakedowns that go by the name of multiculturalism. He is also among the very few commentators who understand the significance of crimes such as the Wichita Massacre-and the media silence that greets them-and I greatly appreciate his help in making this outrage better known.

Mr. Horowitz is quite correct in his description of how his vision of America differs from mine, and also correct to say that I would argue racial consciousness is a natural part of the human condition that we should accept rather than attempt to change. It is his historical perspective that is wrong. My view of America-as a self-consciously European, majority-white nation-is not a recent reaction to the excesses of multiculturalism; it is the original conception of this country, and one that was almost universally accepted until the 1960s.

Many people appear to believe that the motto E Pluribus Unum means that the United States was always meant to be a melting pot of the world's people. In fact, "out of many, one," the motto chosen for the great seal in 1776, refers to the 13 colonies united into one nation. It has nothing to do with multi-racialism.

Since the founding, and up until just a few decades ago, virtually all Americans took it for granted that the United States was, by nature and destiny, a white country. To be sure, there were blacks and Indians, but most Americans saw their presence as a misfortune, and certainly as no threat to the numerical and cultural dominance of whites.

In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . ." This is not a celebration of "diversity" or of the melting pot.

Thomas Jefferson thought it had been a terrible mistake to bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery and then "removed from beyond the reach of mixture." He looked forward to the day when whites would populate not just North but South America, adding "nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface."

The American Colonization Society was founded to free black slaves and persuade them to return to Africa. As Henry Clay put it at the society's inaugural meeting in 1816, its purpose was to "rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population." The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Gen. Winfield Scott, and two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Marshall and Roger Taney. As for James Monroe, the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in gratitude for his help in sending blacks to Africa.

Abraham Lincoln also favored colonization. He was the first President ever to invite a delegation of blacks officially to visit the White House; he held the meeting to ask them to persuade their people to leave. Even in the midst of a desperate war with the Confederacy, Lincoln found time to study the problem of black colonization, and to appoint Rev. James Mitchell as Commissioner of Emigration.

His successor Andrew Johnson felt the same way: "This is a country for white men," he wrote, "and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men . . . ." James Garfield certainly agreed. Before he became President he wrote, "[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way . . . ."

What of 20th century Presidents? Theodore Roosevelt thought blacks were "a perfectly stupid race," and blamed Southerners for bringing them to America. In 1901 he wrote: "I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent . . . he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away . . . ." As for Indians, he once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the health of the tenth."

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as president of Princeton prevented blacks from enrolling. He enforced segregation in government offices and was supported in this by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard, who argued that "civilized white men" could not be expected to work with "barbarous black men." During the Presidential campaign of 1912, Wilson campaigned to keep Asians out of the country: "I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson."

Henry Cabot Lodge took the view that "there is a limit to the capacity of any race for assimilating and elevating an inferior race, and when you begin to pour in unlimited numbers of people of alien or lower races of less social efficiency and less moral force, you are running the most frightful risk that any people can run."

Harry Truman is remembered for integrating the armed services by executive order, but in his private correspondence was as much a separatist as Jefferson: "I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America."

As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality "or that a Negro should court my daughter." It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a President whose public pronouncements on race begin to be acceptable by today's standards (although he made virtually no effort to end segregation).

I have quoted politicians because they are cautious people who recirculate the bromides of their times. Mark Twain, who never sought anyone's vote, wrote of the American Indian that he was "a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one." Jack London explained that part of the appeal of socialism was that it was "devised so as to give more strength to these certain kindred favored races so that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races."

Samuel Gompers, probably the most famous labor leader in American history, reflected prevailing views. In 1921 he wrote: "Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil." He went on to add, "It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion."

The white, European character of the United States was enshrined in law. The first naturalization bill, passed in 1790, made citizenship available only to "free white persons." A few localities recognized free blacks as citizens of states, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1857 that no black, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States. Blacks did gain U.S. citizenship under the post-Civil War amendments, but other races did not. State and federal laws excluded Asians, and in 1914 the Supreme Court upheld the principle that citizenship could be denied to foreign-born Asians.

The ban on immigration and naturalization of Chinese, established in 1882, continued until 1943. It was only when the United States found itself allied with China in the Second World War that Congress repealed the Chinese exclusion laws-but not by much. It set an annual quota of 105 Chinese. Needless to say, it permitted no immigration from Japan. Until 1965, the United States had a "national origins" immigration policy designed explicitly to keep the country white.

The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for whites. Before the federal government took control of voting rights in the 1960s, the states determined who could and could not vote. Only in 1924 did Congress confer citizenship on Indians, and every state that entered the union between 1819 and the Civil War kept blacks from voting. In 1855, Negroes could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the country's blacks. The federal government did not allow free Negroes to vote in the territories it controlled.

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibited withholding the franchise on racial grounds, was not an expression of egalitarianism so much as an attempt to punish the South-where most blacks lived-and a political calculation by Republicans that they would win black support. In the West, there was great opposition to the amendment for fear it would mean Asians could vote, and in Rhode Island ratification nearly failed for fear it would mean the Irish "race" would get the vote.

Strong opposition to mixed marriage was enshrined in law. Sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books in 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v. Virginia.

Mr. Horowitz is simply wrong when he writes of "going back to the good old American ideal" of multi-racialism. I am certain that if all the prominent Americans I have quoted could rise from their graves, they would endorse the American Renaissance view of race and nation, and would be shocked at the idea of a multi-hued America in which we are to pretend race can be made not to matter. It is American Renaissance that is faithful to the original vision of America. Walt Whitman perhaps put it most succinctly when he wrote, "[I]s not America for the Whites? And is it not better so?" Yes, it is.

Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that "we are all prisoners of identity politics," implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions to "David's Defense of Israel Campaign"? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it "surrendering to the multicultural miasma" when I work to return to a self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one.

Not long before he was assassinated, Yitzhak Rabin told U.S. News and World Report that as Prime Minister of Israel he had worked to achieve many things, but what he cared about most was that Israel remain at least 90 percent Jewish. He recognized that the character of Israel would change in fundamental-and to him unacceptable-ways if the non-Jewish population increased beyond a small minority. Equally obviously, the character of the United States is changing as non-whites arrive in large numbers.

Throughout most of its history, white Americans took the Rabin view: that their country had a distinctly racial and ethnic core that was to be preserved at all costs. When Mr. Horowitz writes about the "good old American ideal," that is what he should have in mind, not a historically inaccurate view that drapes a radical new course with trappings of false tradition.

By all means, let Israel remain Jewish, but by the same token let the United States remain majority-white. Mr. Horowitz has a distinguished record of fighting double standards, so he should recognize one when he sees it. If he supports a Jewish Israel, he should support a white America.

-----------------------

There, Mr.Jenkins.
Now we all can see what the brewhaha's all about & make up our own minds, eh?

Let us see how this shakes out among posters once they've had a chance to read both sides, shall we?

Next time don't be so lazy, Mr. Jenkins; if, I can post these articles for the forum, so can you.

And Mr Jenkins?
Seems we've met, before.
But, how could that be, huh?

...I see you're *new* here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.