What’s wrong with Trump’s proposal?
Please read the whole thing. It’s short. Pay particular attention to this:
Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night…
Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment.
[NOTE: And yes, I realize that Trump didn’t label all Muslims a problem; he labeled them a potential problem, and some portion of them an actual problem. But the effect is that Trump and his supporters appear to doing exactly what Obama was accusing the right of doing: lumping all Muslims together and discriminating against them. That would alienate even our Muslim allies, as well as many of the Muslims we need for intelligence work, and those who might be struggling to make Islam more compatible with Western values. It would make many Muslims more paranoid that the West really is out to get them. And yes—that sort of paranoia is what the jihadis want, and would be likely to swell their ranks rather than shrink them.]
[ADDENDUM: By the way, I think this move of Trump’s was issued now because the recent poll that said he was losing to Cruz in Iowa made him think he had to do something huuuge.]
Funny, I agree with Trump on this. I also have started to notice that he is an excellent negotiator. He puts out the most extreme stance on something, and then he softens it a bit.
For example, he now says that of course Muslims who are American citizens would not be barred from returning to the U.S.
I think he is right…why are we not suspending all visa programs until we figure out how to vet these people properly? Think about 9/11, some of the killers came here on student visas. Some came here from a supposedly pro-America Saudi Arabia. If we pick and choose what countries and what visas, then we are doing no good.
We are allowed to stop immigration any time we want. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot. There is nothing mean, wrong or racist about it.
Malik proves that we cannot vet people properly, even from countries we supposedly have ‘better’ relationships with.
I have zero problems with what Trump said. I don’t think that is extreme. I think it is logical, normal thinking after what happened in Paris and San Bernardino.
K-E:
Where does Trump say that about citizens? Could you provide a link? The only exception I’ve seen him make is for people in our military, and I provided a link to that.
I think you are misunderstanding his position and softening it from what he has indicated it is.
By the way, how do you propose to apply this religious test? Let’s say a British Muslim wants to get a visa to come here. He’s a convert. How do you find out his religion? Do we have identity cards? Really, how do you propose to do this? For that matter, how do you locate American Muslims? Anyone with an Arab name (that wouldn’t do it)? Membership in a mosque? Do you see where this is going? Did you also read the “note” to the post, and do you have an answer for that?
Canada and others restrict Muslim immigration
Even if inebriated with pompous, condescending holier-than-thouness, one must eventually climb down from the staggering heights of moral superiority for …
there is garbage to be taken out.
If, you want to remain alive that is.
Plenty, yes. Worse than what we have now, I am not convinced. I also do not trust the current administration to do good vetting.
G6loq:
When you write “inebriated with pompous, condescending holier-than-thouness,” who or what group are you referring to?
Because I think most of the people who are regulars on this blog would be in favor of more restrictions on immigration from Musllim countries, including the refugee program. Even most of Trump’s rivals and critics are in favor of that, although not in favor of the breadth of his proposal. Are you referring to liberals? Or Obama? Because I don’t see them changing their attitude any time soon, if ever.
…the Obama administration has already …purposefully …neutered the “intelligence” apparatus.
Like too many of the federal agencies, it has been infiltrated, weaponized, and enfeebled …the damage is extensive.
We’re going to have to rebuild anyways.
We had no problem co-opting Soviet spies during the Cold War. I don’t see the difference, nor the potential problem as far as future potential “intelligence assets” go, now, either.
The rules of that game haven’t changed. We just haven’t played to win for a while.
…the article is pretty much nonsensical hysteria.
davisbr:
No, it is not nonsensical hysteria. It’s nonsensical to call it nonsensical.
If Trump’s program were actually put into play, we’d be crippling our intelligence apparatus, not only now (when it’s already been harmed by Obama’s policies), but in the future, if there were a Republican president.
Sam L.:
The issue is not whether it’s worse than what we have now. The issue is whether it’s worse than what the other GOP candidates (like Cruz, for example) are proposing.
neo-neocon Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 6:59 pm
G6loq:
When you write “inebriated with pompous, condescending holier-than-thouness,” who or what group are you referring to?
An example.
Note Ryan’s new bear.
A powerful dhimmitude signal in the world view of the enemy.
A very Jungian slip.
Affectation of Dr. Spock like detached rationality will get you killed in times such as we are. War times that is.
Trump is right.
Well, it’s true that not all muslims are a problem.
But 90% of them are.
Why? Because muslims side with muslims, we have a nice experience with that in Europe. I you see some neonazis harassing a jew, you don’t go easy with them because they’re christians (supposed you are). You prioritize the rule of law. Most of muslims don’t.
That’s why problems arise when muslim population reach some percentage milestones.
Check the article about islamisation, by a palestinian atheis blogger
http://proud-a.blogspot.com/2014/03/Islamization.html
Of course, individuals are not the same than the group. But… when the percentage of troubled individuals is so high in a group, would you allow members of this group to enter your community?
Think about that: imagine you can allow or deny a group of families to live in your building. You know that 90% will bring problems, though you can’t identify which ones. What would you do?
and, b-t-w:
Ted Cruz Offers The Weakest Possible Criticism Of Donald Trump’s Anti-Muslim Plan
Cruz knows …
and, b-t-w: he used his words well
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.
Easy to miss when inebriated with false rationality and exhilarated bourgeois attachment to ‘principles’.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus …
You could be right, but a commenter at Ace of Spades this afternoon pointed out that for the last few days politicians and the media were all talking about gun control, and Trump singlehandedly derailed that and changed the “national conversation” (I hate that phrase) to restrictions on Muslim immigration, or even restrictions on immigration period.
As K-E said, Trump is an expert negotiator. He’s starting out by staking an extreme position, but he might end up more or less where you are. Contrast that with the typical Republican who starts out with a “moderate” or “centrist” position, then moves to the left.
I think this may mark the true beginning of Trump’s third party candidacy. Saw a poll tonight saying that 68% of his current supporters are willing to follow him right over that cliff.
Perot redux, and ‘Mission Accomplished’ for the Clinton crime family.
I’m with Geller and Trump.
The ummah does NOT accept Americans as long term residents — let alone as immigrants.
Saudi Arabia has an upper limit of one contract term for outside hired hands.
The occasional exception is made for the top brass — who are old enough to never have locally born and bred offspring.
Banning immigration from Araby — most nations on this planet do so. ( China, Japan, India, et. al. )
It’s never proved a problem.
There’s no reciprocity of relations between the ummah and the kafir, not now, not ever.
Shapiro, Cheney and the rest are DREAMING.
%%%
It’s pretty obvious that either Cruz or Trump will prevail.
It’s evolving as I predicted// hoped some weeks back — right here.
Carson is fading — and everyone’s second pick is Cruz.
Cruz – as previously commented upon by yours truly – flatly refuses to ‘dis’ Trump.
Smart as a whip, he is.
Cruz is already slotting Trump for Secretary of Commerce — strangely – the very position I slotted him for – right here.
Trump is slotting Cruz for V-P — again — run up the flag pole right here.
Neo, you’re pulling a higher profile than you might ever imagine.
&&&&&&
The politicians are no longer taking surveys — polls — they are going straight to social media — and the intellectual blogs.
To do so is MUCH more efficient of staff time — and is drastically cheaper than convening focus groups.
%%%
Muslim immigration simply has to STOP.
An immigration holiday has to start.
That Barry Soetoro is totally against both is an indication that both must be the right thing to do.
%%%%
You might note that no REAL refugees from Syria are being allowed entry, just more Sunni fanatics.
Even Dr. Carson has enough smarts to realize that the best way to help them is to stump up food and other aid — and ship it to Jordan.
Moderate Muslims would rather have $$$ than anything.
Moving to America — en masse — is the goal of the fanatics — not the moderates.
and, b-t-w:
Following the Islamic terror attacks in Paris that killed over 130 people, France has begun raiding mosques, despite cries of “Islamophobia” and racism. However, what police found Muslims hiding there is more than enough to have us demanding they all be torn down.
In a controversial move, a mosque in Lagny-sur-Marne was thoroughly raided by French authorities Sunday after its members were suspected of supporting the Paris terror attacks and the Islamic State (ISIS/Daesh). What they found was absolutely chilling.
France 24 reports that police uncovered massive stash of 7.62mm Kalashnikov ammunition and ISIS propaganda videos. A revolver and “jihadist documents” were also found at the home of one of the mosque leaders.
At least 334 weapons were confiscated and 232 Muslims were arrested, with 22 under surveillance with travel bans and 9 placed under house arrest.
This is the third mosque to be closed in France since the Paris attack on November 13. As a result of the terror attacks, 2,235 homes have been subsequently raided.
[ADDENDUM: ♪♪♪ By the way, I think this move of Trump’s was issued now because the recent poll that said he was losing to Cruz in Iowa made him think he had to do something ♩♩♩ huuuge.♬]
It took me about a week after 9-11 to figure out what was going on with Islam at which point it became evident that restrictions on immigration were necessary and for sure it would be done. Boy, was I wrong. Surely there are others here who thought the same at the time.
Please stop that stupid “and, b-t-w” shit. It’s too precious by way more than half.
Yes, of coure BTW would be much more in keeping with internet protocol BTW 🙂
Even if he doesn’t get any further in his bid for the Presidency than he has, Trump’s contribution will be that he has exposed the fact that the mid-point our fellow citizens’ “Overton Window” on matters such as illegal immigration policies in particular and immigration policies in general is quite noticeably to the “right” of where our D.C., media and academia “elites”/”opinion-shapers” have been thinking/believing/afraid/insisting it is.
So, even though I’m a Cruz guy (my ideal ticket at this point: Cruz/Fiorina 2016), I am quite thankful for Trump’s candidacy.
On initial examination, Shapiro’s criticisms appear valid. His objections are legal, philosophical and moral. Shapiro asserts that:
“American Citizens Have Citizenship.”
The simple truth is that no Muslim can be intellectually honest in swearing allegiance to America, while also remaining Muslim. Only deceit or willful denial allow a Muslim to claim otherwise.
Our former ignorance and now common willful blindness to that truth will not change that reality in the slightest.
“There Is A Difference Between Profiling And A Religious Ban.”
Shapiro advances an erroneous premise. Islam is NOT a religion. It is a virulently expansionist, totalitarian ideology that justifies extreme violence in service of that expansion and domination, while wrapping itself in a facade of religious pretense.
Profiling without banning Islam is accepting the lie that Islam is a religion. Islam is at best a death cult to ALL outside its sect’s territory. Islam’s territory was once perhaps 95% Christian… that’s Islam’s reaction to ‘turning the other cheek’.
“The Greatest Murder Machine in History”
How many more millions must die before we face the truth?
“Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight.”
What ‘intelligence’ apparatus? Hello? Paris? San Bernardino? The wife ‘vetted’ by BOTH the DHS and the FBI… al Baghadi still loose? Turkey buying ISIS oil? Qatar financing ISIS? The Saudi’s financing extreme Wahhabi mosques around the world including in America.
The FBI releasing a terrorist crime scene to reporters less than 48 hrs after the murders. Knowing that more were involved. Forbidden to even use the word Islamic in connection with terrorism…
Islam is insisting that we either set aside our ‘better natures’ or submit and die.
Western civilization is in a fight to the death. A refusal to recognize that is societal suicide. History is filled with examples of such.
Only in fantasy do you win a knife fight while insisting on fighting by the ‘Marquis of Queensbury’ rules.
A lot has changed since 1992.
Perot was running as a third party candidate against an incumbent President. If Trump goes third party, he will not be.
Trump is much, much better known than Perot. The country is in dire straits now compared to 1992.
And the Republican Party is skating on very thin ice right now. Conservatives are thoroughly disgusted with their duplicity and “failure theater”.
The GOP and “conservative pundits” seem to be doing everything in their power to destroy Trump’s candidacy, and I’ve been hearing talk of a brokered convention to prevent his nomination.
If the Republican Party wants to commit suicide, that’s on them. I won’t stand in their way.
“Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic.”
I’m not riffing off of Geoffrey Britain, but what intelligence apparatus such as we do have would we be kissing goodbye?
We’ve received almost zero intel assistance from domestic Muslim sources since 9/11/2001. They’ve largely either willingly followed CAIR’s lead or have been cowed into toeing the corporate line that any police surveillance constitutes “Islamophobia,” Muslims can not cooperate, and in fact must fight to shut down effective domestic intel gathering operations. The domestic Muslim community will offer “support” by acting as advisers. This largely amounts to telling the USG that its our policies that are responsible for terrorism. Islam is perfect as is.
And how would barring immigration from these war torn Muslim countries, at least, hurt our standing among our foreign Muslim allies? That is, after all, exactly their position. And they’ve adopted this policy for the exact same reason Trump has. It would be suicidal to let them in.
Saudi Arabia could house 100,000 Syrian refugees tomorrow. They have a tent city set up in Mecca to house pilgrims who conduct the Hajj. Calling it a tent city doesn’t quite do it justice as these are semi-permanent structures complete with foundations, central air and heat, plumbing, etc., but fabric walls.
But they won’t let the Syrian refugees in because they’re not stupid. How would demonstrating that we, too, are not stupid hurt our standing with them or any other country that has a Trump-style policy toward the supposed refugees? That would include all the Gulf states, none of which is sufficiently stupid to adopt Obama’s attitude toward the refugees.
Instapundit has some very pertinent links up, like the Supreme Court Decision regarding FDR’s internment camps Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) (emphasis mine):
Of course we’re not technically “at war”, are we?
Trump could have put is more precisely. But, like before, he will win on points because he knows the law the president may use during a conflict: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives the President authority to block or admit the groups of people he chooses.
SOURCE: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/08/trump-can-legally-impose-muslim-ban/#ixzz3tmBz2lhx
For example, Obama uses the same law, strictly read, to admit Syrians to the US horribly persecuted by Asaad, but deny virtually all Christians in the same conflict beheaded and raped by ISIS.
This is truly an evil difference unequaled since FDRs naked anti-Semitism, when Jews were hunted by the Nazis for extermination. As a nation, we ought to be deeply ashamed to permit this.
An additional example is provided by the Iranian revolution: During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.
Thus, Trump as president might simply list countries (mostly those that happen to be Muslim) with significant terrorist activity in an EO.
We’ve received almost zero intel assistance from domestic Muslim sources since 9/11/2001.
A 2014 Duke University study found that since 9/11 more Muslim-American terrorism suspects and perpetrators were brought to the attention of law enforcement by members of the Muslim-American community than were discovered through U.S. intelligence operations.
In my opinion, Trump/Cruz is the best ticket we can hope for right now. (I can’t see Trump settling for second banana.)
As others have pointed out, Cruz has been sidling up to Trump, and has not criticized him.
I believe that Trump is the only Republican candidate who could potentially win in a landslide. All of the others, including Cruz, would barely squeak by at best and might not be able to overcome the margin of fraud.
Trump appeals to working class whites, the old “Reagan Democrats”. Apparently some polls have Trump taking a portion of the black vote. That could be significant, since the Democrats would be in serious trouble if they can’t capture 90-95% of the black vote. That could explain the constant drumbeat of racial divisiveness. It’s intended to keep blacks voting Democrat.
Hillary’s “base” seems to consist mostly of bitter menopausal white feminists. Young people overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders. They would probably tune out if Hillary is the Dem nominee.
Actually, I think the best thing that could happen is if both parties fracture. Then maybe we might see a realignment along individual liberty vs. statist lines.
Further on towards Geoffrey and Steve57 debating points:
The situation today is really much worse than that because with Islamic nations hell bent on advancing Jihad and world conquest through sharia theocratic law and propaganda subversion of the West, assimilation only works one-way.
Thus, Saudi and other central Muslim nations were far more open and accommodating fifty or sixty years ago. Today you could never open a gay bar in any Muslim nation dominated nation from Turkey throughout the Persian Gulf and two thousand clicks East or West of there. And not even Lebanon. (Ergo, only Israel.)
Nor could a Christain church be opened there.
By contrast, the West is completely open to any Mosque.
We are assimilated into the Borg of Islamic conquest – never the reverse.
This is unidirectional assimilation, and the West is the loser in it – always. The West must demand two-way, bilateral assimilation (or tolerance) of the West, or else be doomed to fall.
And my bet is that Trump will lead this enormous pro-human rights negotiation with the uncivilized portions of the world. Certainly one else has the balls or grandiose need to achieve it.
The historic precedent that must be defended and universalized is religious tolerance, which the West made normative between the Protestant Reformation, the Wars of Religion, and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 – a roughly two-hundred year period.
The new international norm was religious toleration: the King or sovereign would decide what state the supported religion was to be, but equally had to tolerate dissenters in their midst without resorting to genocide.
Islam has not resolved this stage of conflict over religious belief, nor has it achieved this modern norm that became the basis for international human rights, and which the colonial European powers then brought to most of the rest of the world.
Instead, Islam, in this new post-Fall of the Soviet Other Super Power phase of history – which Salafists read as Allah’s divine sign of zealous engagement against the infidel – has put the advance of peace among world civilizations into reverse, transforming coexistence into genocidal and fratricidal wars (cf, ISIS and Boko Haram in Nigeria and that neighborhood, respectively).
Doing so, however, will have transformative consequences for Islam, and may even lead to modernizing paths for this reactionary religion, consistent with inevitable ongoing globalization.
If so, Israel will survive an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. Peace and economic growth will expand.
The international order, now hell-bent on war and destruction and conquest, can be saved along modernizing lines of internationalism.
A new Arab Spring can internationalize, saving Egypt, too – and perhaps a New Enlightenment for the Muslim world may come.
GO TRUMP!
Ann,
I just did a bit of research on Kurzman and easily determined him to be a leftist apologist for Islam.
He gives no source for his claim that “since 9/11 more Muslim-American terrorism suspects and perpetrators were brought to the attention of law enforcement by members of the Muslim-American community than were discovered through U.S. intelligence operations.”
That BTW is either a condemnation of US Intelligence efforts or more likely, the result of the doctored, watered down reports that the Obama administration demands of the Intelligence analysts.
As for Kurzman’s leftism and apologia, consider from the NYT;
Charles Kurzman, “A Resolute Commitment to Coexistence – Now That Projects Strength,” IslamiCommentary, November 30, 2015.
Charles Kurzman and David Schanzer, “The Other Terror Threat,” The New York Times, June 16, 2015. “If you keep up with the news, you know that a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by overseas extremists, are engaging in violence here in the United States. But headlines can mislead. The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.“
How very familiar…
Taking a beginning look at the welcome and contrary evidence offered by Ann, and the Duke-UNC study she links to, I cannot be definitive in a cursory look. But this does look suspiciously skewed.
The NYTimes spun Kurzman’s work in a headline, thusly:
“Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11, “By SCOTT SHANE JUNE 24, 2015
SOURCE http://5barx.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33198&p=103201
I’m not sure if it is uncritically subsuming Southern Poverty Law Center data or the objectionable inclusion of gang activity that skews the results of its findings or what – but apparently, there is something sketchy going on in its data set inclusion rules.
Goes one critical comment, “So leaving out the victims of 911, the original trade center bombing, the cole, and other murders by Muslims that are not labeled jihadists etc etc don’t count.” (SEE “Knabe” HERE http://5barx.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=33198&sid=ca3cf3d6a3add1a16127b01c657a62f8&start=20)
Kurzman, et al, continue in the NYTimes:
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opini … .html?_r=0
I’m not sure if Ann’s cited source truly stinks, but it sure smells off.
I’ve heard a lot of comments lately about our believe in freedom of religion. And also comments like those of Paul Ryan who say “this is not who we are.” But I’ve been wondering lately about what the framers of our Constitution would have thought had they ever envisioned a large influx of Islam practicing Muslims. I’m sure they were aware of the dangers of Islam but did they ever imagine it would come here? I don’t know the answer to this but perhaps someone on here does.
As most of us here know, Hussein Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about human rights or any of it. But THIS was a shock, even now: Rush Limbaugh has highlighted a horrific story broken by (the liberal) Hill.com.
Yeah, that Kurzman study doesn’t look all that good. I missed that he provided no source for his figures. He gives some just before that paragraph and some after, and the one after refers to one of his own publications, which the PDF cuts off at the right so that no title etc. can be seen.
Bumsrush Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Glad you mentioned that. The First Amendment was entirely about the horrible and brutal wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries, and to ensure that they could never happen here.
The Founders never in their worst nightmares envisioned Muslims in America.
Almost as soon as we won independence, we found ourselves at war with Muslims, since they captured our ships and enslaved their crews.
Another set of facts Rush pointed out, which make a very strong case (he leaves it to the hearer to draw your own conclusions) that moslems and Islam are wholly incompatible with America and the Judeo-Christian ethical values. Because you can’t count on them, or their descendents, to never take it seriously enough to follow its commandments.
Transcript here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/08/typical_american_dreamers_what_we_ve_learned_about_the_san_bernardino_two
Here are the bullet points only, of facts that have emerged in the last few days. How many of these did you hear on the Leftmedia broadcasts?
This is Investors.com: “San Bernardino ‘Lone Wolves’ Ran In Pack”:
Thank god there is one potential candidate in this race who has the audacity and the funds to tell the politically-correct mainstream to stuff it. Without Trump, there would be no discussion of the crises we face, only watered-down, cautious pablum.
I highly recommend this article at National Review by Andrew McCarthy.
“Donald Trump’s rhetorical excesses aside, he has a way of pushing us into important debates, particularly on immigration. He has done it again with his bracing proposal to force ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.’”
Beverly:
What on earth are you, the Hill, or Rush Limbaugh talking about? There were legal immigrants then, as well as refugees. I knew some of them during the 50s and 60s, and when I was in school back then I had to learn about the immigration law of the time, which was based on quotas. Granted, the system was different and more restrictive then, but there most definitely were legal immigrants.
See this:
The floodgates began to open in 1965, but there certainly was immigration during the years 1924-1965.
I paid particular attention to the intelligence implications. It reminded me of a news story back in the Bush era where Muslim translators objected to working with Jewish and Christian native arabic speakers in national security work. The Muslims stayed on the job. The takeaway is that we can’t trust their translations.
This site reported thatMuslim translators at Gitmo aided and abetted the enemy.
Muslims always support their co-religionists and are well versed in the art of taqiyya
Latest polling in Iowa has Trump ahead with 33% followed by Cruz at 20%. I don’t think Trump was prompted by Cruz catching up. Trump repeatedly talked about the Paris attacks before San Bernardino.
I’ve been a regular reader here for toughly six years and an infrequent commenter. And I usually think to myself (85% of the time) that you have a good point, and even when you don’t, your heart is in the right place.
As a fellow ‘changer’, I often get where you are coming from.
And, while I haven’t been anti-Trump thus far (I’ve been pro-Cruz, mostly), I can’t help but wonder why Trump’s thoughts on immigration aren’t plain common sense. We’ve been lacking it for so long in our leadership, it’s like we can’t even identify it anymore when it appears.
I don’t buy the ‘Intelligence Apparatus’ spiel for a second. What Intelligence Apparatus? Or rather, what Intelligence Apparatus that hasn’t had its hands tied for almost a decade ( at least) and prevented from doing what it’s supposed to do.
Any successes they have had have been either dumb luck or unsung brave men and women winning in spite of their own leadership doing the level best to hold them back.
It’s time to play hardball. It’s time to ask ourselves what we believe: Does Freedom of Religion (and the metric tons of baggage it hauls with it) and our values, as are currently being held over us, trump (pun intended) our national and cultural survival?
Trump may just win me over.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 8:39 pm
“The Greatest Murder Machine in History”
How many more millions must die before we face the truth?
Many thanks for that link. I’d missed that piece at Am. Thinker.
Few know about the genocide of the Hindus.
I don’t think Muslims have almost any of those concerns. They live in dictatorships, surrounded by Islamic extremism, but they’re going to take offense at us limiting immigration?!?
I doubt it.
I think everyone on our side getting the vapors over the issue without weighing its merits represents a failure of imagination.
Neo, you lost me on this one. As much as I dislike Trump the man and think he is not fit presidential material, he is right on this. If it goes against our heritage of religious tolerance, too bad. We’re talking survival.
Ann – I’m glad you brought Kurzman to my attention, though.
He’s clearly a cheerleading apologist for Islam is a “religion of peace” PC ‘thought’ and anti-Islamophobic academic wannabe SJW: Charles Kurzman’s “The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists” of 2011 (Oxford), gleans no reviews at Amazon – none whatsoever.
Goodreads rewards with…something:
Yeah, blah, blah blah!
Fortunately, one of the three reader-reviews at Goodreads can see through the apologists crap, finding it neither convincing nor compelling.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10764233-the-missing-martyrs
For masochists, there is a review up at Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011/08/missing-martyrs-charles-kurzman-jihadists
Actually, given where we are today, after the invasion of Europe and the coming of worse in the US, I’m sad that his deluded fantasy is so very far from describing reality – as any honest observer of Obummer knows.
My, how quickly times change.
You know, not all Germans were Natzis. But before we let them immigrate here after WWII we made sure they weren’t Nazis, or if we needed their skills like Von Braun we made sure they were “de-Natzified”.
Now Islam is not only a religion, but also a political ststem. In fact it is not separated in their religion, and we can see so called democratic Islamic countries all back to their roots, like Turkey.
Would Neo exclude card carrying members of the Nazi party from immigrating here? If so why is it okay to exclude a political system but but a religious one?
Whoever disagrees to Trump’s plan are no better than those who letting mass waves of Nazis into the country. We’re all Germans bad? No, only a small percentage were Nazis, but we wouldn’t let Germans in at all until we had a process to vet them.
Neo just refuses to believe we’re at war. Until they are vetted all Muslims are enemies.
Neo delivers a fine corrective to Beverly (and Rush), while missing the greater point, (neo-neocon Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 10:37 pm), still more relevant for today:
The quota system era saw hundreds of thousands per year (at most), enter the US because of the portion of foreign born in the US reached an all-time new high.
Today, we’ve exceeded that era during the worst recovery from recession on record.
The point of that new regime was to assimilate the new immigrants. The reversal in the 1960s institutionalized unlimited immigration which Obama has abused for nakedly partisan ends.
If we are to keep a Republic, we need to completely reverse this open-ended tide. I very much doubt that we will. On that score, I am deeply pessimistic.
Orson:
No, I am not missing the point at all.
My response to Beverly was to correct a factual misstatement, not to lay out my entire recommendation for immigration policy.
Anyone who’s read this blog for any amount of time should know that I do not agree with our current immigration policy and believe it needs a huge amount of revamping and cutting back. Take a look at my posts under the category “immigration” and familiarize yourself with my position on the subject. In general, I have made it clear that I believe immigration needs to be limited in a number of ways in order to make sure we don’t commit cultural suicide. Immigrants need to become Americans, and that’s happening less and less now, in part because of overwhelming numbers and in part because there’s less of an insistence on assimilation (for example, I am against bilingual education).
That’s amusing:
Reminder: Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from entering US
What’s wrong with Trump’s proposal?
Plenty.
Hmmm …
G6loq:
Yes, there would be nothing wrong with Trump’s proposal if it were something similar—in other words, if he were suggesting that Syrians should be prohibited from coming here—with the exceptions that Carter made, which were (if you check your own link) “except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”
No problem whatsoever if that was Trump’s proposal. But it was not Trump’s proposal.
Now, if Jimmy Carter had said that any US citizen of Iranian background who left the country could no longer return, that would be somewhat analogous to Trump’s proposal. But still, that involves a country rather than a religion, and so the better analogy would be if Jimmy Carter had said that any Muslim US citizen who left the country could not return. Of course, Carter said no such thing, nor would he.
So what’s your point exactly, except to make irrelevant analogies?
Orson Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Taking a beginning look at the welcome and contrary evidence offered by Ann, and the Duke-UNC study she links to, I cannot be definitive in a cursory look. But this does look suspiciously skewed.
&&&
The adult Muslim fraction in the US is ~ 1%.
Yet that tiny fraction is batting even, or better, than the entire rest of the adult US population when it comes to political violence.
Con law prof Elizabeth Price Foley has compiled a LINK rich post, basically supporting Trump’s stance on the immigration issue and a president’s prerogatives.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/misstating-the-constitution-the-mainstream-media-and-politicians-across-the-political-spectrum-are/
While Foley focuses on Korematsu, my favorite fun in the bloviating sweepstakes concerns Trump/Hitler comparisons. People are so apoplectic that they cannot notice that Hitler kept people inside, unable to flee his wrath, while Trump merely wants strong borders to keep invaders out.
Hardly comparable sins – unless the nation itself is evil.
(Here, we know what the prog-Left answer is.)
In WW2, we did not give German prisoners copies of “Mein Kampf” and we didn’t let them goose-step around the camp compound shouting “Heil Hitler”.
At Gitmo, we treat their version of “Mein Kampf” as sacred and we let them practice their “religion” to the fullest extent possible.
This is WW3 and we are treating the enemy and their beliefs as things we need to respect. This is insane.
Yeah, not all Muslims are terrorists. The terrorists are the true believers with the courage to act on their beliefs. Behind them are millions who applaud what they are doing.
This piece by David French at NRO should open some eyes.
Orson Says:
December 9th, 2015 at 12:49 am
Neo delivers a fine corrective to Beverly (and Rush), while missing the greater point, (neo-neocon Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 10:37 pm), still more relevant for today:
The quota system era saw hundreds of thousands per year (at most), enter the US because of the portion of foreign born in the US reached an all-time new high.
$$$$
1) Lest we forget: prior to 1965 immigrants had virtually no shot at the welfare state… whatsoever.
2) It was COMMON for immigrants to have to have a sponsor $$$ that FINANCIALLY stood behind the immigrant.
3) Priority under the quotes was for family connected kin.
They days of floating up to Ellis Island were over.
#2 was a ‘killer’ for many.
It was the primary excuse that FDR used to keep fleeing Jews out. The Nazis had seized 100% of their liquid assets — to include strip searches.
Thus you had scandals such as the St. Louis.
“The owners of the St. Louis, the Hamburg-Amerika Line, knew even before the ship sailed that its passengers might have trouble disembarking in Cuba. The passengers, who held landing certificates and transit visas issued by the Cuban Director-General of Immigration, did not know that Cuban President Federico Laredo Bru had issued a decree just a week before the ship sailed that invalidated all recently issued landing certificates. Entry to Cuba required written authorization from the Cuban Secretaries of State and Labor and the posting of a $500 bond (The bond was waived for US tourists).
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267
$500 back then was a staggering amount of money for the common American, doubly so for a European.
The need to pony up a bond// security was THE primary mechanism that keep fleeing Jews in the “unwanted” category.
The Nazis knew that by stealing their liquid assets, the were also eliminating any possibility of (legal and customary) flight.
###
Since 1965, the American welfare state has been largely brought down by mass immigration by the indigent.
Because they really ARE indigent — and crippled — they have totally drained the Social Security Disabilities Trust Fund.
Unlike natives, recent immigrants have EVERY reason to bring in their indigent parents and more.
This proved to be such an influx that Romneycare had to be denied to legal immigrants for a time. The original projections never imagined the immense flow of elderly parents that would ensue.
{ Immigrant twenty-somethings have economically worthless parents that need welfare to the end of their days. Unlike the prior era, the kids are not required to pick up that tab.
In California, this linkage has blown up the welfare budgets up and down the state.
Folks who can never make an economic contribution are coming in by the trainload. Everyone arriving is getting a Lotto winning ticket as the step over.}
Pakistan, Iraq, Bangladesh Top Muslim Nations Receiving Green Cards from US
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pakistan-iraq-bangladesh-top-muslim-nations-receiving-green-cards-from-us/
The main problem is this:
The nation believes that it is NOT at war.
Thus the nation does NOT really have to make an effort to defend itself.
(And this is position that Obama is pushing to the max. Those who believe that the nation is in danger are overreacting hysterically and are open to accusations of (that most evil of traits—more evil than even mass murderers) “racists”. Even the US military is not really necessary in times such as these…)
And this is the problem with Europe, too, though Hollande’s rhetoric seems to be changing things as far as France is concerned, perhaps.
Tellingly, it is NOT the problem in Israel, whose citizens and politicians (for the most part) understand that it is very much at war with those who wish to destroy it, even if some of the latter like to refer to themselves as Israel’s “Partners in Peace”.
And indeed, since the West (and the Israeli Left) believes that Israel is not really at war—or should not really be at war, or if it is at war, it is entirely Israel’s fault—then the overvall, internationlist view of the I-P conflict is that it would/could be solved easily and quickly, except that Israel refuses to “solve” it.
Thus Israel is uniformly blamed, and perceived as the only (or the major) reason why the I-P conflict still continues; and Israel has been lambasted globally by the West, the media and academic elites—in fact, by practically everybody for this very reason.
Nothing that Israel can do is right. Nothing that the Palestinians do (or say) can be wrong.
And such a predicament, the Palestinians believe, will ultimately bring about Israel’s collapse (and destruction), which is the Palestinian goal.
The West, which is pushing Israel to neuter itself in the face of threats to its existence, may decide to continue to neuter itself, simply because it refuses to understand the nature of the threat that it (the West) is facing.
The question is: At point will the West understand—truly understand—that it is at war?
Look how much damage two people can do if they have a mind to. Perhaps the place to start for those with an opinion on this blog is to read a well translated version of the Quran, and see just what it is that drives these people.
As an aside, and as one who adheres to the KISS method, watch the gumball video. Immigration doesn’t put a nick in the world wide problems of hunger, over-population in countries that can’t afford it, etc.
Sorry Neo- Your classical liberal slip is showing :-). Which is fine as it is your blog but it looks like a lot of your readers disagree. Which is what I like about those readers on the right. No calls for your banishment, resignation or beheading.
“By the way, how do you propose to apply this religious test? Let’s say a British Muslim wants to get a visa to come here. He’s a convert. How do you find out his religion?”
I’m an engineer by trade and here is a non-pc quick way to do this (which would also streamline the domestic TSA operation.) You ask the normal questions about being a Muslim and get negative answers. Then you bring out a small pet pig and ask the convert to pet the pig. If he pets the pig, he was probably not lying. While this may offend the sensibilities of the Left or Cair, I don’t really care. Would it provide a simple non-intrusive way to determine the question? Granted it would also unfortunately inconvenience those of Jewish persuasion and would not catch those that are willing to forego “Paradise” for the “Cause”. But it would streamline the flow. Should those of the “Offended” status ever take on their counterparts and show Islam has indeed become a “Religion of Peace” in deed rather than only in word , things could be modified. But I don’t see this as happening in my lifetime 🙁
My preference in the GOP race is Cruz. But I like the way Trump mixes it up. But I find it interesting that those that strongly dislike Trump expect everything said by him to be cast in stone and any clarification is “walking it back”. While at the same time when an email is released demonstrating the the establishment was flat out lying when they said there was no military response possible is met with a Ho Hum! I don’t think 4 Americans died from Trump’s actions.
Perhaps that is why the “common folk” like Trump and the Liberals, MSM and the intelligentsia despise him.
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Neo and all the commenters for this great thread. There’s more informed analysis here than in the rest of media-land put together. (Yes, I did make a very humble donation last week.)
Not to clutter up Neo’s blog but I thought this reader on another blog puts things in perspective clearly.
“Let me ask a rhetorical question? If I had a license to carry a gun, and I have a gun in my pocket or my bag, and went into a bank, would anyone know or care? No. Now, If I walked into a bank with a gun in my hand, but never shot anyone, would the people in the bank have the right to be scared of me? Of course! Why? Because they know that the gun can kill people, and that I had that gun in my hand instead of keeping it is a holster or in my pocket. I go, but I am a model citizen, I have never shot anyone, they go we don’t care.
Similarly the 1.5 billion Muslims on earth. Most of them are carrying a gun in their hands, and most of them are not shooting anyone, but, they can potentially shoot. You say, WTF, you are painting with a broad brush? Perhaps, but, I have a reason. During the past 40 years as documented all over the world the small sect of Wahhabism has been spread by the Saudi petrodollars to every corner of the earth. Hence, more than 90% of the 1.5 billion Muslims have been fully expose to that barbaric xenophobic ideologies, thus justifying the usage of broad brush. Perhaps 60% of the exposed Muslims agree and accept that barbaric dogma to varied degrees. Hence Trump shutting down all Muslims from coming in temporary is equivalent to a bank saying no one is allowed in this bank with a gun in his hands (or in his pocket) until the bank management can figuer a way to keep its employees, and customer safe.
All the ISIS terrorists are doing the same thing that the government of Saudi Arabia is doing and have done. Except, now the Saudis are not beheading their own homosexuals only, they have made most Muslims all over the world agents or sympathizers of that hate cult, which insist that beheadings is part of Islamic teachings as in the Koran & Hadith ! It is true that a very small fraction of the 1.5 billion infected Muslims are ready to blow themselves up, but, we must cleanse the world from that dogma first, which can only be done by ADMITTING that this dogma exists.”
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2015/12/08/mohyeldins-pauline-kael-moment-every-single-person-i-spoke-says
Muslims will become terrorists because the U.S. wouldn’t let them into the U.S.? What? The idea that Trump’s rhetoric or actions causes Islamist terrorism or will increase the amount of it is nonsensical.
The first point is more sensible though, in that we need Muslims, or even non-violent Islamists, as allies against violent Islamism.
Islam, the religion of submission, is shit. Why are people pussyfooting around on this and perpetually trying to conflate “Islam” with race?
Someone raised the question about what our framers had in mind by religious liberty. Probably John Locke was the most influential philosopher who was widely read by our founders who addressed the issue of religious liberty in his tract called FOUR LETTERS CONCERNING TOLERATION. The take away quote is as follows:
“By this we see what difference there is between the church and the commonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful in the commonwealth, cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the church. Whatsoever is permitted unto any of his subjects for their ordinary use, neither can nor ought to be forbidden by him to any sect of people for their religious uses. If any man may lawfully take bread or wine, either sitting or kneeling, in his own house, the law ought not to abridge him of the same liberty in his religious worship; though in the church the use of bread and wine be very different, and be there applied to the mysteries of faith, and rites of divine worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the commonwealth of a people in their ordinary use, and are therefore forbidden by laws, those things ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites…”
While he didn’t name Islam specifically, according to principles espoused by John Locke Islam would be proscribed because the teachings of Islam are “prejudicial to the commonwealth of a people.”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/764
By the way, it should be obvious that my remark about “people” was not directed at commenters here; but was applicable to our sniveling opinion leaders in the media and government generally.
Courtesy of Powerline, I just came across a National Review article that echoes the thoughts I shared in my earlier post. A couple of excerpts, including the conclusion (with which I fully agree):
“Then along came Donald Trump. On key issues, he didn’t just move the Overton Window, he smashed it, scattered the shards, and rolled over them with a steamroller. On issues like immigration, national security, and even the manner of political debate itself, there’s no window left. Registration of Muslims? On the table. Bans on Muslims entering the country? On the table. Mass deportation? On the table. Walling off our southern border at Mexico’s expense? On the table. The current GOP front-runner is advocating policies that represent the mirror-image extremism to the Left’s race and identity-soaked politics.
…
While many of Trump’s actual proposals are misguided, nonsensical, or untenable, by smashing the window, he’s begun the process of freeing the American people from the artificial and destructive constraints of Left-defined discourse. Serious and substantive politicians like Ted Cruz will get a more respectful hearing, and PC shibboleths about allegedly boundless virtues of Islam and immigration will be treated with the skepticism they deserve.
…
The marketplace of ideas is getting raucous indeed. What’s a person to do? As I wrote yesterday, now is the time to speak with informed conviction, apathetic to the demands both of political correctness and the mindless reactions against PC. Use the new-found room in the public discourse to speak your mind, but at the same time model the values you wish to see in others. In the new free-for-all, the Golden Rule still matters, reason still matters, and attitude is not everything. Trump should not rule the world he has made.”
The whole thing:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428200/donald-trump-overton-window-american-political-debate
Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield
Jean,
Good Muslims behead Jewish males and make sex slaves of the women and girls, just like their”prophet” did to the Jews of Medina.
The Macedonian government has put up razor-wire barriers and placed restrictions on which asylum-seekers may enter. Needless to say, the “refugees” are unhappy, and are making their feelings known. “Open [the border] or die” – yep, that’s the sort of sentiment that’s bound to melt the hearts of Europeans and cause them to welcome the “New Europeans” into their homes and larders.
Culture-enriching “youths” at one border crossing tore down part of the razor-wire barrier, attacked police, threw stones, and engaged in some of the other high-spirited antics that have made them so popular all over Europe.
Those who say that the electoral road is finished for White advocates in heavily Muslim populated areas of the UK, have had their argument boosted by a perverse by-election result in one of the Labour Party’s safest seats.
The election appears to have been stolen by massive organised postal vote fraud within the Muslim community which comprises more than a third of the electorate in Oldham. The crucial factor seems to be bundles of postal votes delivered in the last days by “senior Muslim representatives of the Labour Party.” Oldham, which has a long history of racial tension, is notorious for this type of rigging.
It is a travesty so blatant that the only way the establishment can deal with it is to sneer and collectively turn a blind eye. The media is restricting itself to reporting how UKIP leader Nigel Farage immediately came under fire for suggesting the vote was “bent.”
Wow, should’ve come back to read comments sooner. Neo-con, I found the quote I was looking for:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-defends-muslim-ban-morning-joe-lindsey-154401548.html
In this, Trump explains that if you are a citizen, of course you can come back to the U.S.
This is how he operates. Take the hardest position, and then walk it back some. I still go with the idea he is using negotiator tactics with all of this. I don’t get the uproar. It is common sense to block people from coming here until we can figure out how to fix our broken visa programs. Isn’t it???
Also, great link to a story about how Carter shut down anyone coming to the U.S. from Iran and sent back thousands of Iranians who were here on student visas. Was that ‘un-American’ also? I think that was also common sense.
Why is it NOW in 2015 that idea is ‘racist’ and ‘islamophobic,’ but in 1979 it was prudent and smart??? If people are coming here with bad intent, and we cannot figure out who those people are, we MUST stop ALL from entering until we can identify the bad ones. No one has the right to come to America. We GIVE them that right as we see fit through visa programs and refugee programs. There is no Constitution right to enter this country, if you are not a citizen.
Forgot Carter link. Here it is:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield
Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic.
former FBI Counterterrorism Agent John Guandolo said that since 9/11, “we collectively have received nearly zero help from the Muslim Community.”
a “vast majority” of U.S. mosques and Islamic centers are a part of a much larger “jihadi network,” told host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that though Muslim community leaders “certainly give the air as if they are helping,” if one looks at the “major Islamic organizations, the major Islamic centers in the United States,” they have “condemned all of the counter-terrorism policies and they’ve gotten the government to kowtow to them, to turn only to them for advice.”
“And what advice do they give them?” Guandolo asked. “That Islam doesn’t stand for this and that everything you’re doing is the reason for what happened–9/11 is your fault because of your policies.”
Guandolo said “it gets down to the local ground level where our behavior becomes insane and we do things like” tell FBI agents to take their socks off while arresting people at mosques so “you’re arresting somebody in your socks. It’s not only insane but there’s an officer-safety issue as well.” He added there was absolutely “no real logic about what happened in San Bernardino” when the F.B.I. allowed the media to rummage through the home of the San Bernardino terrorists and said “this kind of mindset” entered the FBI because of Muslim leaders who are advising the federal government on Islam and terrorism.
turns out propaganda works…
and it works on women a lot more than men
but thats ok…
mass rapes are a goodness for feminism.
and no woman cares about others enough to prevent such if such requires a temporary hold on things
Muslims Gang Rape American Woman In Colorado, In Rare And Horrific Ways
ok. now cut that all out as its too long and says things against the open borders liberal suicide.
Providence Rhode Island US: Four Muslim Men From Saudi Arabia Charged With ‘..Drugging and Gang-Raping..’ At least 2 Girls
given that the religion says its ok to rape women who are not wearing a chador, its all good to let them in and not vette them
Five Muslim Iraqi Immigrants Gang Rape Elderly American Woman
A young woman, Rokstan M, 20, (photo right) whose family branded her ‘unclean’ after she was gang-raped by Muslims in her Syrian homeland has been found murdered, allegedly by her father and brothers in Germany, evidently on the orders of her own mother…in the twisted Muslim logic that she had brought disgrace upon her family because of the rape attack.
then you have to like this one:
Stanek listed five “typical crimes” committed by Somali MUSLIM gang members, including credit card fraud, cell phone and gun store burglaries, and sex trafficking, witness intimidation, with some of the criminal activity tied to international terrorism, Stanek said.
nothing like using USA money in crime to fund terrorism and rapists here and abroad..
Guess the Religion: 4 Foreign Students Drugged/Gang-Raped 2 Women, Man Raped 10-Yr-Old
hey, want to hear about what happens in other open borders countries once there is enough people?
Ten Horrifying Stories of Muslims Gang Raping White Women
Like this article? →
Share
Tweet
Email
Next Page →
In Stockholm, Sweden, as many as 20 Muslim men gang-raped an 11-year-old girl. A mother was hosting a birthday party at a public bath/swim center for a group of 11 and 12 year old children. Up to 20 Muslim men who lived at a nearby refugee center arrived at the public bath. They immediately began to assault the children, ripping their swimsuits off and beating the boys when they tried to stop the assault. Eventually, the men cornered one of the little girls in a grotto in the bathhouse and gang raped her. The police refused to make any arrests.
for the sake of politics of liberalism
just let them all in!!!
i wonder if 150 girls will have to be turned into prostitutes like in england before neo changes her mind on a temporary moritorium to sort things out.. . (we know she doesnt like trump, she prefers liberalism light… which is what the other candidates on the not left are offering)
To answer the original point, the FBI has said they are getting virtually no co-operation in trying to track down terrorists from Moslems living in this country.
PS Trump said this has nothing to do with people in this country, although I would say the idea of a hearing to show cause why a naturalized citizen found to be supporting terrorism (treason under the Constitution) should not be stripped of his citizenship and deported is perfectly legal and I think it will come to that.
Sweden:
Muslim Rape Wave in Sweden / Muslimska Vé¥ldté¤kt Vé¥g i Sverige
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fBwSfmgjl0
100% assaults were muslim males
Muslims say they will make it legal to rape white women when they take over Europe
Women are dying their hair black and only travel in groups (feminized men dont protect them)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QRZ-gcG4Es
UK
Muslim Gangs Drug & Rape Children All Over The UK Britain Finally Starts To Wake Up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0YEtuacUk
USA no go zones
No-Go Zone in Dearborn: Where Islam Rules & Christians Are Stoned
With the stoning of Christians in broad daylight in Dearborn while local law enforcement officers stood by refusing to protect them, No Go Zones — places where the Constitutional law no longer is enforced — have arrived in America. [jews have it worse!!]
Bobby Jindal Warns of Muslim ‘No-Go Zones’ in US
“If they want to come here and they want to set up their own culture and values that’s not immigration, that’s really invasion if you’re honest about it,” Jindal told Family Research Council
Jindal, 43, the son of immigrants from India, told Neil Cavuto on Fox News last week that the United States faced a similar danger because of lax immigration policies by the Obama administration.
“They want to use our freedoms to undermine that freedom in the first place,” Jindal said, referring to Muslim immigrants. “This is a place where you have freedom of self-determination, freedom of religious liberty, freedom of speech.
of course neo deleted the reference to the book found that details the plans and actions that muslims should take once in country… create enclaves, get welfare, make no go zones… create sharia zones… etc.
the government of France has identified 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, that the state does not fully control, citing Middle East foreign policy expert Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.
“You can call them whatever term you want, but absolutely there are neighborhoods, we have communities of people that don’t want to integrate or assimilate,” he said.
“There aren’t large-scale no-go zones here as there are in Europe, but they are coming, because Islam by its very nature is against assimilation into a kaffir (non-Muslim) society. It is supremacist at its core — Islam must dominate and not be dominated,” Geller
Onetime Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat has posted a piece online by Keith Davies explaining that no-go zones in the U.K. are areas where even serious crimes are not reported, because they are handled by Shariah rather than British law enforcement.
he has his own site..
http://shoebat.com/2015/01/22/no-muslim-no-go-zones-really/
ArtfldgrsGhost – Thank you for all the posts about rape. It is interesting how the one story in Colorado (if you read the details, it is horrific what these men did to their victim), it is very similar to a story that was featured on “Cold Justice: Sex Crimes.” A rape of a young woman in the back of a smoke shop…very similar brutality. And, drum roll, the perpetrator was a muslim immigrant.
These men from Middle Eastern nations who rape go beyond the pale even for a typical rapist. These are SICK people, brought up in a culture where women are less than human. Just look to Sweden and other European countries where rape has grown exponentially. I won’t even go into the protection of child rapists in the U.K. The world has gone mad.
Muslims ‘fastest-growing religious group in world,’ 70% Democrat…
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-muslims-fastest-growing-religious-group-in-the-world-70-democrat/article/2577951
so if you like obama and that group, keep lettng them in in droves… and with that, we become a one party socialist globalist state…
but at least we did what was morally right and allowed an invasion to complete the conversion of a nuclear state that cant be attacked into a communist state by conversion abusing morality.
of course there is no moral judge and there is no reward for that, there is just a change..
When NO STATE favors jews, i wonder what will happen to them? at least it will be a moral extermination…
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle” Louis Veuillot
Our demographic projections estimate that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country (not including people who say they have no religion).
Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%).
so i hope all those women with the best jobs will be happy with higher taxes to pay for the 5-10 kids of the islamic welfare persons, while they work, maybe have one kid, and cant make ends meet.
us guys? we are with MGTOW and see no reason to work so hard for just ourselves… or convert and be respected culturally.
chance sides
convert and be a winner..
no?
WATCH: This Muslim Leader Just Came To Donald Trump’s Defense In A Way That Shocked Everyone
http://www.westernjournalism.com/this-muslim-leader-just-came-to-donald-trumps-defense-in-a-way-that-shocked-everyone/
A Texas imam who has challenged American Muslims to support their home nation said he agrees with Donald Trump’s call for a temporary ban on new Muslims entering the United States.
Imam Nidal Alsayyed of Beaumont, Texas, said the government should go even further than Trump’s proposal and establish a ban on accepting Syrian refugees of any religion. He said that actions are necessary “when it comes to peace and safety.”
….”Not all Muslims are Jihadists, but all Jihadists are Muslim”….
If the FBI, DHS and various national security apparatus cannot differentiate the dangerous Muslim from the non-dangerous Muslim, which every department head has recently admitted they cannot, then Trump’s position to pause all Muslim immigration is exponentially more reasonable.
This is not a pause because of a religious test , it is a pause because we don’t know how to vet people yet.
Islam, a religion of war, is and always will be a threat to the lives and freedoms of all non-Muslims, since Muslims are under an eternal command from Allah “to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’”
We as non-Muslims do not have the ability to reform the Islamic religion, and, while we welcome any efforts by Muslims themselves to Kemalize, i.e., secularize Islamic societies, we can neither involve ourselves in such endeavors nor count on their success.
We must therefore permanently take away Islam’s ability to harm us, by steadily reducing the numbers and power of Muslims in the West and throughout the non-Muslim world until all seriously believing Muslims and the vast majority of other Muslims have been returned to the historic Muslim lands, and by isolating, containing, and policing the Muslim world.
Why is multiculturalism only one way? Try going to a muslim country
James Taranto on Trump and Islam is worth a read:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/did-trump-just-win-1449604108?mod=trending_now_3#livefyre-comment
yeah, trump is evil for wanting to put a temporary moritorium on jihadis…
but its ok we block christian refugees, and dont protest or fight that at all…
yeah, thats consistent…
[meanwhile, numbers came out that the jews are facing higher numbers of incidents with over 50% of hate crimes being against jews… and unilke whites, its not those pesky teen yutes]
No room in America for Christian refugees
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees
America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.
so its ok to block christians
but not ok to block muslims
the left is goodness for letting in muslims (who vote democrat 70% of the time)(
and its goodness to block christians (who tend to vote republican)
and neo is helping…
because if your not against it your for it and there is no middle neutral ground..
much more at the link (and others)
ADDENDUM:
New CNN/ORC Poll: Donald Trump CRUSHES Field In Iowa — 33% and Climbing…
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/12/07/new-cnnorc-poll-donald-trump-crushes-field-in-iowa-33-and-climbing/
Islam is a severe case of moral insanity – not only militant, but garden variety too. If there is a way to minimize any contacts with Muslims – their numbers in the country, their influence and political clout – this way should be taken. Is this a discrimination? Sure, and completely justified one.
I agree with Neo on this.
He didn’t say, “refugees” or “vetting is a problem because the woman terrorist was vetted”.
He said, “muslims”
People wake up. The bill that was passed yesterday by like 400+ votes banned people applying for Visa’s from 4 countries. The problem with that bill is it doesn’t include enough countries. It should’ve included Pakistan where the woman had a passport from.
Arfldgr:
I don’t think you read anything I write with any care whatsoever.
I wrote a lengthy post the other day pointing out that hate crimes are being directed towards Jews rather than Muslims.
I have never called Trump evil, and I support greater restrictions on immigration from Muslim countries and a complete ban on Syrian refugees.
I’m not going to rehash all my positions, but quit insisting on misstating them and then knocking down the strawmen you have created.
Rick said, “This is not a pause because of a religious test , it is a pause because we don’t know how to vet people yet.”
Well then stop refugees period and specify countries entirely.
But trump said “Muslims”. He made the religious test. I almost think he is trying to help Hillary and Obama make their case.
Baklava:
I’m in agreement with you—plus I asked several times how this religious test could even be applied, and listed the difficulties. I’ve gotten no answer from anyone advocating this, and I’ve not seen the question asked of Trump himself.
Mike II wrote:
Sorry Neo- Your classical liberal slip is showing :-). Which is fine as it is your blog but it looks like a lot of your readers disagree. Which is what I like about those readers on the right. No calls for your banishment, resignation or beheading.
Leave the identity politics to liberals. Leave the name calling and personal attacks to liberals. Where does anybody in their right mind think it’s OK to single out an entire religion as banned from entering the country temporarily. There are OTHER ways of saying it such as “from specific countries” or “halting refugee program from UNHCR because THEY have a religious test.”
Simple. Solved.
Anyone who supports trump’s proposal (I’m talking about the proposal not identity politics) is not thinking this through. Chess is a game where you think things through. You can’t have in the history books where the U.S. did this.
neo?
Typical campaign hyperbole (mixed with a lot of common sense) – however non-PC that hyperbole is – coming from Trump isn’t a sound reason for Shapiro’s post hoc ergo propter hoc speculation on some probable dearth of future intelligence cooperation from Islamic general populations due to an immigration block.
The article is reactive PC nonsense mixed with poisonous ignorance. His conclusions don’t follow, because his rationale is, well, silly.
…hence, my categorizing the article as “nonsensical hysteria”.
Shapiro doesn’t have the faintest idea what he’s talking about.
The acquisition of an Intelligence asset by the US has NEVER been reliant upon the acceptance of an adversary’s general populace of US policies EVER.
That simply is not how the game is played.
The recruitment of “spies” isn’t – and has never been – reliant upon volunteers (not that having them isn’t nice, but still, volunteers always have their own private motivations).
The “acquisition”/recruitment (and grooming) of high value assets has always been an art based upon the skill/ruthlessness/benefits/incentives/calculations/whatever of a spymaster (and becomes Art in the hands of a grandmaster).
It remains so, and will remain so (well, for humint).
…and as for any unstated objections, forced “cooperation” – or coercion, if you prefer – of an asset is still cooperation.
Shapiro’s article just isn’t something I can see worth anyone’s concern. It’s a typical hit piece. He don’t like Trump? Well, he’s welcome to his opinion.
So my “nonsensical hysteria” evaluation stands.
Exactly Neo,
I could claim somebody was “Muslim” even though they aren’t and stop them from being admitted to the country.
Or visa versa.
I could claim I’m Christian and actually be Muslim.
This is history doomed to repeat itself. Everyone who supports the proposal is hurting America. Ben Carson’s interview on Hannity last night NAILS this issue. Trump is not nailing it he’s doing what he always does which is speaking inarticulately at best and causing problems in the future.
Trump’s plan is about one step away from requiring Muslims to wear a crescent and a star on their clothing as they walk the streets. Think about that. Is that what we want? I find his ideas [which will never be implemented btw] a step too far and in the wrong direction.
Baklava and MDL:
Yes.
Many of the comments here are surprising to me in their failure to see the problems inherent in what Trump (and they) are advocating, and their failure to answer some of the objections I’ve made such as the religion restriction vs. country restriction difference.
What is the magical words???
It’s like they think they need to educate us about history or Islam or radical Islam or whatever you want to call it.
We all know the facts here. We’ve been studying them for 2 decades or more each.
The action is the crime.
Maybe our proposal should be:
You commit an act of terror and you are an immigrant – your entire family, moms, brothers, sister, cousins etc will be fingerprinted, iris scanned, deported, etc.
That will help deal with those who are here now. And we can prohibit people from specific countries also.
Baklava:
“You can’t have in the history books where the U.S. did this.”
Whether or not we should, we certainly can.
As DNW perceptively commented recently, when “emotional connection with or investment in the history, people, or heritage of this country and culture” is removed, then in replacement, “the US is a legal platform and material infrastructure from which [to] leverage and work out an ideological and political agenda.”
DNW was speaking specifically of the President, but the means and method for “hope and change” are neither unique to him nor, for that matter, the Left.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. The Trump phenomenon represents a movement towards a paradigm shift with the intention to add chapters to our history written with the perspective of a fundamentally revised American culture. Whether it should, it can – anyone can – if it wins the game.
Baklava:
“Leave the identity politics to liberals. Leave the name calling and personal attacks to liberals.”
The alt-Right has picked up the activist game.
Their proximate goal is displacing mainstream conservatives (whom they’ve categorically targeted Alinsky-style as “cuckservatives”) of the Right, which they evaluate to be a vulnerable ‘weak horse’ ripe for replacement.
Whether or not Trump wins the election, they’re establishing an activist movement. This ain’t just Perot redux. This is Moveon.org.
The Left activist conquest versus liberals provides the precedent for the alt-Right activist strategy versus mainstream conservatives. The alt-Right believes it can become the Right and the conservatives in the way that “liberals” in your comment refers to the leftists who’ve displaced genuine liberals.
The insurgent strategy can work if mainstream conservatives don’t learn from the demise of liberals. Easier said than done since they wouldn’t be facing this evolutionary challenge in the first place had they sufficiently adapted activism early enough to establish dominance as the strong horse in the only social cultural/political game there is.
To survive and compete against all competitors on the spectrum, the Right must fundamentally change its approach in a way I wonder whether mainstream conservatives are constitutionally capable, and alt-Right insurgents are calculating they are not.
Eric,
That wasn’t persuasive.
1) The only thing you can change is yourself.
2) If you don’t think of the next move and the next move – you lose at chess
If you think that religious tests are the best option – I don’t know the magical words to help persuade you otherwise – you have to know that there are winning arguments.
You can talk about:
1) Vetting people from certain countries isn’t doable
2) Policy regarding “actions” like terrorist activities will land all family somewhere else and help discover your networks
Eric, if somebody calls me cuck this or that. It doesn’t change me and my “good ideas” or “good way of thinking”. It simply says more about the name caller. That’s all it does.
There is only one way forward. Trump’s proposal is not the way forward. The way forward is hard. There is no utopia, Santa Claus, rainbow or unicorn.
There is being persuasive.
Baklava,
They’re not playing against them, at least not proximately. They’re playing against you.
Nor, albeit the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game looks like HS debate club, is the game decided by whose ideas are better.
Eric:
I believe your analysis about alt-Right is correct. I’m unfamiliar with the term, but I get the concept. I’ve watched that movement grow and grow in the years I’ve been blogging. To me, it very much resembles the left in its way of arguing and its susceptibility to a cult of personality (which we see in the Trump phenomenon).
I happen to think the alt-Right is on course to guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton.
Neo asked about where Trump had softened. Here it is from “The Hill”:
“During a Tuesday morning interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” however, Trump clarified that American Muslims would still be able to travel freely under his plan. ”
Before anyone goes all wee wee on Trump, please read “The Art of the Deal” and understand the concept of the initial negotiating position. Also remember that in spite of the quote all over the place, Trump said: “… until our representatives get a handle on the problem”.
Rick Caird,
Sorry. He stepped in it.
He basically said, “Religious test until our representatives get a handle on the problem”
instead of ..
“Stopping refugees or visa applicants from these specific countries until our representatives get a handle on the problem”
Which by the way a bill with 400+ votes passed the house yesterday that does that…. for 4 countries.
I stand with Neo.
He’s inarticulate at best.
Offensive and divisive.
Not able to solve these problems and do want to know why?
Because in this country you have to be persuasive – you can’t be a king.
He’s not persuasive any more than Obama is.
That alt-right business sounds rather like a Gleichschaltung: people are going to have to — shudder — get their minds right.
Not a fan of the donald, but someone please provide a comprehensive plan to assure with 95% certainty that will identify potential jihadists coming into the country from any muslim majority country or area within a country with a large muslim minority. This plan should include intense scrutiny of returning American citizens or those who are not citizens but reside here legally. It must also include continuous tracking of those who are allowed to enter for a period of 5 years.
Of course, this is impossible. So lets do something half assed and let jihadists murder 2,000 in the Mall of America.
Parker,
This is why I’m opposed to the 72% males flowing into Europe with nothing but clothes and a cell phone.
You can’t have soldier aged men with those kinds of numbers with no verification or vetting flowing into your country. They will have a disaster. Correction: They have had disasters and will have more and worse disasters.
The history and creation of the Alternative Right has its own particular story.
People like to call them that, because it’s obvious that they aren’t the anti Sarah Palin cuckservatives of 2008 or the turtling defensive Republicans like the ones in DC or even the compassionate neo con conservatism of Bush II’s war campaigns. Something is different.
That’s because the alliance was created specifically to fight a common enemy, the Leftist alliance. It wasn’t designed was a MoveOn political PAC or such.
If we are witnessing a worldwide “Hijrah”, then Trump is exactly right.
PatD:
Actually, I have little doubt that a Hijrah is what is going on, and I have felt it to be a possibility for quite some time (I wrote a post back in September that mentioned it).
It does not follow from that, however, that Trump’s solution would work. I have explained over and over why I think it wouldn’t accomplish what people think it would accomplish. I’m not going to repeat myself here.
@neo-neocon: Obama has one more year. He can let 100,000 – 200,00 Syrian “refugees” in, and he seems to be determined to do that. Even more can pour across the southern border.
Trump’s plan, even if it would halt the flow, would be too little, too late. ISIS will take full advantage of the one year window that Obama has granted them.
Eisenhower implemented Operation Wetback (not the most PC name) to remove 2 million illegals. It worked despite fierce opposition from the likes of Lyndon Johnson.
If we are serious about removing the Jihadist threat in our midst and preventing a Hijrah on our soil, we need “Operation JihadiBeGone”. The threat to the Muslim community would be: turn in your Jihadists or we’ll treat you as Jihadists. A tough approach but the Jihadists have declared war on Western civilization and any Muslims who want to assimilate.
It took a long time for America to wake up to the Nazi threat, although Roosevelt figured it out, and planned for eventual entry into the war. As a subject of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, I get really annoyed when Americans talk about the war beginning in 1941. It started in 1939 and the British Empire fought alone for two dark years against the Nazis and the Japs.
At some point, modern America is going to wake up to the fact that radical Islam is an existential threat, whether it be Sunni Jihadists or nuclear armed Shiites. Apparently, 9/11 wasn’t enough. Would an EMP over the NorthEast do it?
You may loathe Trump with a burning passion, but he has at least moved the public debate to considering the threats posed by radical Islam.
I was talking to my Serbian personal trainer today, and he said “I’m seeing way too many burqas in my [downtown] neighborhood. I feel like we’re being invaded.” He doesn’t vote and we mainly talk about sports and food. I think he’ll be voting.
I said previously in a comment on this blog that the two big issues in 2016 will be illegal immigration and Islam. The GOP didn’t want that. The Democrats didn’t want that. The media didn’t want that.
But that is what they have to deal with, and the electorate will judge them on those issues. Trump put those issues on the table.
Except for Ted Cruz, who weaved and dodged, every GOP candidate dumped on Trump for saying we need to pause Muslim immigration. Are they all nuts? Instead of floating around in the DC bubble, maybe they should have done some townhalls and rallies and asked their supporters what they thought. Early days, but it looks like Trump’s poll numbers just went up again.
The masochist class will only do something once Michael Bloomberg is flayed alive on the streets of New York.
Then what they will do is run to the “hillbillies” for protection, or convert to Islam.
Neo:
“I happen to think the alt-Right is on course to guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton.”
They’ll accept that to achieve their proximate goal.
Ymarsakar:
“That’s because the alliance was created specifically to fight a common enemy, the Leftist alliance.”
They’ve grouped mainstream conservatives and the GOP with the “Leftist alliance”.
They’re against the Left, but for them, the mainstream conservatives of the Right are on the same side of the line as the Left. At best, they’re voluntary human shields and collateral damage if they don’t remove themselves from the line of fire. At worst, they’re complicit “cuckservatives” recalling GK Chesterton’s criticism of conservatives.
Ymarsakar:
“It wasn’t designed was a MoveOn political PAC or such.”
Different means to a similar end – activism is a workshop of tools.
Moveon.org started with a limited stated mission. But consistent with the MO, it was opportunistic – the issue is never just the issue. It represents a precedent for a recent successful reform movement analogous to the alt-Right campaign.