* Here are the names of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary that voted in favor of the Leahy amendment and against the people of the United States. Make sure they hear from you, especially if you live in their state:
Chuck Grassley, (R-IA)
Orrin G. Hatch0 (R – UT)
Lindsey Graham (R – SC)
John Cornyn (R – TX)
Michael S. Lee (R – UT)
Jeff Flake (R – AZ)
David Perdue (R – GA)
* You know, this is what happens when your elites do their business clandestinely; nobody learns anything from history, because nobody understands history in the first place. Not only is an honest history of Islam completely off the table, the entire history of religion. People simply assume that religion just is the neutered version that exists in America (which liberals still manage to build up as some all powerful monolith in their minds) or that entering the borders of constitution-land just magically turns religion from a shared, lived, communal experience that embraces all aspects of life (hey, like liberalism!) to a set of arbitrary opinions with no relevance to the outside world except for determining which days to throw a party. The truth is, Christianity in the west, including the US was intentionally neutered by its chief competitor liberalism. Christianity in America is mostly just liberalism with tackier music.
Maybe the elites can neuter Islam too, but I doubt it. Not that Islam is less vulnerable than Christianity, but today’s elites are more clueless than yesterday’s. Yesterday’s elites knew they were engaging in a vast conspiracy. Today’s elites seem like they are only slightly more clued in than the ignorant masses that they manipulate.
You know we are in a bad state when you can’t tell if the people in charge are evil or stupid.
* This is an unbelievably scary development, one that goes right to the core of our sovereignty.
Can similar moves against our freedom of speech be far behind?
Do we still have a country? Or not?
* William Perry, an ex Secretary of Defense and leader, with ex Senator Sam Nunn, of the Nuclear Threat Initiative which has resulted in cooperation with Russia to reduce levels of nuclear weapons by factors of around ten, said about a week ago at a book signing in Washington DC that he believes a terrorist nuclear attack on a city in the United States is “imminent”.
* Countries are stupid idea. Feeds right into white privilege and white supremacy.
* Here in the U.S. we are just beginning to learn the true nature of Islam and how it differs from Christianity. Thus where Jesus taught by precept and example an ethic of self-sacrifice and nonresistance to evil, which is no threat to the other members of society, Muhammad — whom all pious Muslims are taught to revere as the perfect model of what a Muslim should be — taught political domination and submission by any means necessary, which most definitely does threaten the liberty and safety of non-Muslim members of society.
We are just waking up to the possibility that Islam may not be compatible with the liberal ideals and institutions that lie at the heart of our culture and civilization, leading to the unhappy conclusion that the only good Muslim is one that does not take his religion too seriously.
Thus a joke currently making the rounds: What is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim pursues jihad. A moderate Muslim wants radical Muslims to pursue jihad.
Unfortunately this is no joke but is accurately reflected in the five schools of Islam.
* If we didn’t have Middle East wars and Islamic terrorism to worry about, what would our political system be focused on right now? Energy? Polygamy? Even more BLM?
* What do you call a Muslim who wants Enlightenment values in Islam? Dead man walking?
* Here are the bullet points of Ted Cruz’s position on immigration.
SECURE THE BORDER
* Build a wall that works …. I will complete the wall.
* Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.
* Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.
* Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.
RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW
* End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. …. I will rescind each and every one …
* Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.
* End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.
* Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.
REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS
* Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.
* Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.
* Enforce the public-charge doctrine. Current law requires legal immigrants to certify that they will be economically self-sufficient. A Cruz Administration will ensure they do not receive government assistance, which defies the law and harms American taxpayers.
* End birthright citizenship. …. I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.
* When the details of the Rotherham nightmare, and Blighty’s meek acquiescence to no-go sharia zones in their own homeland, began to emerge in US media – granted we’re still waiting for 80% of that media to get around to acknowledging any of it – it became easy to whistle past the graveyard and recall Archie Bunker’s long-ago dismissal of our cousins across the pond with England is a fag country.
Easier to laugh in disbelief than begin to grasp that this most distressing/repulsive of realities: a native population cowed into lickspittle servility out of fear of its unstable and unwanted immigrants – a condition encouraged and enforced by its own quisling elites – becomes, over time, the natural order of things.
Look! We’ve already begun! Just as Rotherham was enabled by the fear of being labelled and prosecuted as ‘racist’, so the dead of San Berdoo came about partly because the Americans who knew, or strongly suspected, were too terrified of Loretta Lynch clapping the darbies on them to blow even a warning whistle…. and with Salon, HuffPo – and sooner rather than later, the NYT and WaPo – screeching for the harshest possible punishment the better to ‘send a message’, it’s hard to blame them.
The next stage – law enforcement declining to wear any sort of identifying garments out of the fear of death – is no longer an IF proposition, but a WHEN.
Don’t believe me? Go back a few days to the point where the identity of the shooters became known, and count up the articles appearing questioning what sort of knuckle-dragging white racism had prompted the massacre. When you start to see headlines – as I did – shouting “Victims had made fun of killer’s beard”, you can woof and bark all you like, because so long as it’s backed up by knock-kneed parliamentary cowardice, it’s all shadow-boxing in empty rooms. You can save yourselves a lot of time and just blow out the pilot light right now.
* You see all these Muslims worshiping at Mosques and they are all men. No women.
It is a man’s religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman’s religion. Rodney Stark made the point in the Rise of Christianity (1997) that Christianity gained adherents by paying particular respect to women(and their ideal world) and taking care of the weak.What do some people call Jesus? The bearded woman.
It’s probably only due to the success and concomitant incursions of Islam into Europe that Christianity at least paid lip service to masculinity. Bill Whittle has called the Koran a ‘manual for conquest.’ And the Muslims did a damn good job of conquering the Mediterranean rim.
Nowadays no more lip service from the pulpit.Things have changed and Christianity does not even nod its head to masculinity. Now Christians socially compete to womanize themselves and ‘give’ to the ‘other’ (the one with the beheading knife.)
* We shouldn’t bar people based on their religion because you can never really prove who is a true Muslim or a true Christian. I don’t want “Christian” Syrians admitted either because they could simply be Muslims lying to the immigration official.
We should bar people based on their country of origin. Allow no immigration from nations with significant jihadist activity. That would included essentially all of the Middle East and North Africa, and parts of Central Asia. In fact, Trump should have phrased his proposal that way to eliminate all of this hand-wringing about religious persecution. Though, I suppose Trump intentionally phrased it his way so he can dominate the news cycle and troll the media intelligentsia.
* Trump seems to have judged the moment far better than I’d initially assumed. I think the backlash is not as intense because politicians and media recognize that grandstanding comes with a significant risk. Obama’s lecture on admitting Syrian refugees was a totally boilerplate cost-free no-brainer reiteration of noble American principles but Paris and San Bernardino quickly turned it into a political liability.
Even mocking people for being afraid of women-and-children turns out to be politically risky.
* The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don’t like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.
But two points:
a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.
b) In this case, “religion” is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration — because we do in fact have such criteria, and I’m not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.
c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that’s the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., “are you a Muslim?”) is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they’d get in, no question.
Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don’t think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.
* The only problem with your proposal is that Islamists also come in, visa-free, from places like France and Belgium. And there a lot of them there too, extreme even, as we have seen.
Notice the, “home-grown,” terrorists. Or the “American citizens” and “French citizens” who shoot, stab and blow up people in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.
The one consistent variable in all this crap for my entire life has been Muslims, wherever they come from. (Yes, most Muslims are wonderful, ordinary people whose concerns in life are pretty much like mine, but the rotten ones are a subset.
Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can’t. There is not way to do it. This Trump proposal is just a thought experiment, a campaign stunt, and talking point.
* The time before Inauguration Day is going to be interesting. As one Twitter wag stated, its like hearing a rattling from your engine and you’re just hoping you can make it home.
* I find it interesting, and definitely worthy of note in this context, that the Green Card Lottery specifically excludes various nations. Those include Mexico, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, which is probably of benefit to America. But Canada is also excluded, and so is part of my country, the UK, in rather an offensive way: although UK citizenship is unitary, the US makes a distinction between the Northern Irish (come on in!) and the English, Scots and Welsh (beat it, you damn limeys!).
* Look, prior to 1965, all ‘Asiatics’ were more or less prohibited from immigrating to the USA on the grounds of ‘national origin’, but which everyone really understood to mean ‘race’, if not ‘religion’.
Despite intermittently whipped-up hysteria about ‘civil rights abuses’ in the southern USA concerning blacks, virtually no serious commentator at that time regarded the USA as a ‘moral pariah’ or even a ‘tyrannical “human rights” abusing regime’. In fact the common perception of the USA was around the globe at that time, was of the final, ultimate guarantor of ‘freedom, democracy and liberty’.
* Trump has done great service to America by cutting through to the very core of the issue. Yes, we may quibble that his proposal lacked nuance and so on, but once you have the big idea planted in the public sphere it is relatively easy to fill in the details. No politician or commentator was even willing to go there and Trump did. For this, I am grateful to him.
Trump is doing this more for dog-whistling than anything else.
His message to the worldwide Muslim ummah is ‘put your house in order, clean-up your act and police yourselves – only you can police yourselves and apply moral pressure to the troublemakers’.
‘Look for the past half century you’ve dealt with lily livered coward after lily livered coward as ‘western leaders’ and you – quite rightly – have taken them for the pussies that they are. ‘You think that things will always be like that, and that you can always walk all over us, but things are going to change, the worm has turned’.
Trump, the shrewd, ruthless and intelligent man that he is, knows that if he – god willing – ever became American president , holds the ‘Trump card’ in all of this.
The bare fact is that Muslims need the USA far more than the USA needs Muslims. The USA thrived and dominated the world, from inauspicious beginnings, entirely *without* the presence of Muslims on its soil.
To avoid eating each other, Pakistanis *need* to move in on the USA.
The USA can do very nicely, thank.you, without Pakistanis.
* Mandatory insurance on immigrants, just like you have to prove you have insurance when you buy a car. Maybe we could get some Republican politicians onboard with the idea of creating a new industry for private enterprise: mandatory immigration insurance.
