From: Lone Star (email him)
Re: Richard Hoste's Column: Ron Paul's The Revolution And Libertarianism's Fatal Flaw
One of them, Jeff Daiell, insisted that most illegal aliens come to the United States to work and only a small percentage commit crimes. Daiell also pressed his case for so-called comprehensive immigration reform and streamlining the aliens' path to citizenship.
Daiell did not mention the social and financial costs of emergency health care, education for aliens' children or the growth of immigrant communities that become ethnic enclaves, often hostile to mainstream America
In my job as a registered nurse, I see daily the harm that immigration does to America. Because of my personal experiences, I have broken with the Libertarian Party over immigration.
Nevertheless, and even after reading Jared Taylor's American Renaissance and columns by the late Sam Francis and while I understand their viewpoints and concerns, I still feel that any political system must safeguard the basic natural rights of human beings.
All in all, I'm not sure that attacking Dr. Paul because he's not sufficiently militant about the National Question serves the cause of liberty.
Lone Star is a Texas native and retired military NCO.
Richard Hoste replies:
I disagree that I'm attacking Ron Paul. I'd just like to see a Libertarian movement that can engage on the important issues of the day. I refer Lone Star to Murray Rothbard's quote in my column:
"In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." [Race! That Murray Book, December 1994.]
A cut back in government will create wider gaps between the races. Then, Libertarians will then be denounced as racist regardless. Paul and his supporters don't have the luxury of ignoring this basic fact.
I agree with Lone Star that all people should be treated with respect.
From: James R. W. Coats (e-mail him)
Re: Don Collins' Column: A Liberal Democrat Says: Why Take The Risk Of Muslim Immigration
I'm stunned by Collins' naïveté.
In his article, Collins wrote:
"Islam's peaceful adherents, who no doubt represents that religion's majority, are, I am sure, as shocked at the dastardly acts of those like Major Hasan as we all are."
And Collins continues that:
"...Major Hasan was born here and is likely unrepresentative."
In fact, it is Islam's peaceful adherents who make its violence possible.
There are three things that deter crime:
Active community involvement to point out lawbreaking to the police. Of course in Islam many violent actions we consider criminal are acceptable.
Criminals who turn themselves in
Good police work.
Nowhere in Islam do any of these three exist.
Despite what Collins may think, Muslims who stand by and do nothing are as bad as those who perpetrate the violent crimes that are now well known as the common denominator of the so called "religion of peace".
Within Islam, Fort Hood is not considered a tragedy. It was simply the Islamic version of mom and apple pie.
When respected writers like Collins don't make these truths clear, we only harm the cause of eliminating Muslim immigration.
Collins writes well but would do better to get over the politically correct nonsense about Islam's peaceful adherents.
From: Fred Porter (e-mail him)
The question to ask when evaluating whether to allow someone immigrate to America is the one that I posed in an earlier letter: "Is the person's immigration to America to America's benefit?"
For those who follow Sharia law, America is not the place to be.
Porter is retired. Another previous letter from him about his loyalty to America is here.