From Breitbart: The Center for Security Policy released a poll Tuesday that should give all Americans pause. The results show that a startling number of American Muslims, our fellow citizens, agree that violence is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam. A full majority of 51% “agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%). …
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
A full 25% of those polled agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”
For those who don’t know, Sharia Law is nothing less than the Nazi-ification of a religion. Sharia authorizes murder against non-believers who won’t convert, horrific oppression of women, the execution of gays, the extermination of Jews, and the beheading of anyone who draws Muhammad.
Currently anywhere from 3 million to 7 million Muslims live in America.
Posted inIslam|Comments Off on Shock Poll: 51% of U.S. Muslims Want Sharia; 25% Okay with Violence Against Americans
* God bless this man. I hope enough people can denounce him in polite circles, but vote for him secretly. Unfortunately openly supporting him is social death, I can attest.
* Wow. It’s like this Trump guy thinks that politicians should actually carry out the wishes of their constituents, rather than hectoring them about what ignorant retrograde racists they all are.
That’s not how politics is done anymore. Is he mad?
* If we (meaning particularly those of us on the alt-right) were serious about stopping this Moslem jihad, the method is right there in front of us. Simply endorse, publically and loudly, the “social conservatism” of Islam. The American and European elites, episcopalian and Jewish, media and corporate, would flip inside 24 hours.
“We have studied the dictates of sharia and find them completely in line with our goals of rolling back the homo agenda, the divorce epidemic, the pornography of Hollywood, acceptance of crime, vulgarity of (c)rap ‘music’ and …”
Our actual sincerity in the statement is irrelevant. The leftists would have to either argue that Islam supports gay marriage, porn, crime, etc, or they’d have to oppose the Moslems. The reason we keep losing is that we insist on following the rules of a game the leftists created where there are no rules for them. Of course if we continue to sit back and do nothing (or continue being the puppet of Zionists), eventually the Moslems will solve the leftist problem for us.
* Houellebecq tried it. I’m not sure if Americans are clever enough to get the joke.
* It is about time someone had the common sense and courage to make the statement Trump released. We ought to put a complete moratorium on all immigration until we fix the immigration laws and regulations. Say a 25 year moratorium which would give us time to vet all those here now, deport illegal aliens as well as radical jihadists or other similar types.
It is time to stop digging.
* This is a hostile army in our midst, not immigrants, not refugees.
Doesn’t matter if they have high IQ’s or not. Many Muslim terrorists have college degrees, some were engineers and even doctors. Once they become devout – they become killers or supporters of them.
* So now we can’t even discriminate against people who live thousands of miles away who aren’t citizens and have no right to be here? This country is so screwed up. The Constitution is really getting to be the enemy of white people if that is true. Either we let in everybody or nobody. I’d take nobody.
* Democrats want mass Islamic immigration for the votes, but what the hell do RINO elites want mass Islamic immigration for? It sure as hell is not for cheap labor because Muslims are not picking fruits and vegetables in rural Central California or rural Nebraska for example. Muslim women are not becoming the nannies of rich WASP, Irish & Italian Catholic, and Jewish infidel babies. At least with Hispanics it makes more sense for why RINOs want as many of them here as possible.
* High IQ Muslims are actually more dangerous than the retarded muslims. The problem with muslims is their ideology combined with their clannish behavior. The more intelligent muslims pose a much higher risk to Americans, as they have the ability to wage more efficient jihad and cause more death and destruction than the typical low IQ muslims.
* Senator Jeff Sessions just came out with numbers on the total number of green cards awarded to Muslim nations from 2009-2013. I believe it was 680,000 green cards. Sessions made the point that if we don’t change our immigration policies, we’re going to continue to get huge numbers of Muslims.
I think this is some type of coordinated offensive against Muslim immigration, being led by Sessions. Given how close Trump is to Sessions, it wouldn’t surprise me if Sessions persuaded him to adopt this policy.
* Mainstream orthodoxy: Invade the World / Invite the World
Bizarre extremism: Burkean prudence
* I will bet $100 that at the end of this week Donald Trump’s poll numbers will have soared to record highs.
Trump’s statement calling for a ban on all Moslem entry into the U.S. just locked-in my vote for him to be our next President of the United States.
Except for JFK blockading Soviet missile shipments to Cuba and Ronald Reagan’s “Government is the problem” opposition to government bloat, Donald Trump’s ban-all-Moslem-entry statement is the most commonsensical thing an American candidate or elected official has said since Ike occupied the Oval Office.
Meanwhile, in bold repudiation of Enemedia-Pravda’s and Left-lib-proglodytes’ rabid attacks on the Second Amendment, Americans appear to be setting records in firearms purchases.
* I can think of a few reasons why Republicans support muslim immigration. First, the US is seen worldwide as being extremely one-sided in our dealings with Israel and the palis. So being able to throw bones to any muslim group serves to show that we have nothing against them. In fact I thought bombing Serbia and supporting the Kosovar muslims was definitely related to this. More than likely allowing muslim immigration into the US is too.
Second the GOP, sans the paleocons, has been on the frontline of this whole democracy-spreading business. How can you go into a place like Iraq or Afghanistan and preach the universal values of democracy, tolerance, blah, blah, blah and then tell the locals, “you can’t come to the USA”? You can’t. If you did you’d offend them and wreck your little project.
Third, the GOP elite are products of the same Ivies as the lefties and they have been marinated in the post 60′s culture. Thus their beliefs on certain issues like immigration are similar to the left’s in that they cannot countenance discriminating against any non-white group.
* Because the most important thing of all is that the foreign policy establishment have no impediments in getting the country into more decade long trillion dollar wars over strategic sources of gravel.
* Trump is the only legitimate contender that I trust not to start WW3. Every other Democratic and Republican candidate (except Paul) is openly advancing an insanely belligerent policy of confrontation towards Russia. Conventional wisdom appears to be that NOT goading a nuclear superpower that we have no natural conflicts with is somehow weird and dangerous. But letting in millions of Muslims? Well shucks, that’s as American as mom and apple pie.
* It’s like if your car is slipping on an icy street, you need to floor the pedal to the metal because anything else would be giving in to Fear.
He lied about his age, there are a bunch of photos of him holding military rifles, he bragged on social media about going to jail for five months for a violent assault, and has other charming social media posts like:
“I am coming to kill you all pieces of shit”
“Bulgaria is a piece of shit, people are shit bulgaria is shit everything there is shit”
“I have deticated my life for allah my god and hes the first n the last.”
“My name is fahad that means cheetah and y’all are sheep so be careful.”
No doubt he’ll do great in Finland, thanks mainstream right!
* Trump has hired more people for high level jobs than the last three presidents put together did before they were elected, so I would not worry too much.
* I think Trump is smarter than anyone here is giving him credit for. If you stop and think about it, sincere guys don’t get elected to be President. They don’t have a chance, because they are too honest – they can see all the things wrong and all the corruption all around them. This deprives them of any allies, because they can’t get in bed with anyone. The Ron Paul dilemma perhaps. Trump is such a sleaze that he has no problem doing business, I think.
So, if you think about it, who do you need on your side to get elected? #1 AIPAC. Normally, a friendly media, or at least half of it (which the Republicans and Democrats more or less split). Here Trump has forged a new path – ZFG I think it’s called. He is able to capture the public attention and the media space from his sharp truthiness – much in the spirit of the age. So, he’s skipping #2, the major media, which is risky, but seems to appeal to him.
I think he’s caging on the visa stuff to avoid alienating the chamber of commerce – and probably doesn’t really care much about it, compared to the other issues, which is immigration immigration immigration, and foreign interventions (from what I’m picking up).
However, what I don’t know is if he’s smart enough to remember that “personnel is policy” and whether he will remember to fire everyone in the State Department (or you know, 10% or so, pour encourager les autres..)
* BBC Radio news headlines this morn:
Item 1 – “Trump call for all Muslims to be banned from entering US is widely condemned” – the smelling salts were much in evidence
Item 3 – “Only 3 out of 46 UK police forces have strategies in place to address forced marriage, honour killings and female genital mutilation”
Item 4 – “US rock band plays Paris after 86 people murdered at their last concert”
* Politically playing nice with Muslims is not going to get the GOP anywhere, it is certainly not going to help them win any elections. Mitt Romney never publicly said anything negative about Muslims like Donald Trump has, yet Mitt Romney still only won a pathetically low 4 percent of the Muslim vote in the 2012 presidential elections, even though he ran as a political moderate and not as a far Right Winger.
* Muslim immigrants do not disperse evenly over the country. Some communities already have a Muslim majority, others are on the way. If you’re being asked by a local Muslim police officer why you’re not covering your hair and why you are eating during the day during Ramadan, the fact that there aren’t many Muslims nationwide won’t seem immediately relevant.
* Anyone catch Walter Huston’s propaganda film “Pearl Harbor” yesterday on TCM? It dealt with the dilemma posed by Japanese-Americans in Hawaii as the US prepared to enter WW2. It was a time machine that pondered the implications of ‘hyphenated Americans’. 37% of Hawaii’s population was of Japanese descent and while, outwardly, the Japanese-American community professed allegiance to the US there was no doubt a 5th column amongst them such that the US military had a ‘grab list’ of locals who would be arrested upon the outbreak of war. Recommended viewing for those who want to see a well done film that is as timely today as it was then!
* How many Japanese and German citizens were allowed to visit the United States after December 1941?
* Another case for Steve’s National Immigrant Safety Board.
If Trump gets too much heat on this and needs to stress that he is only talking about a temporary thing, I guess he could make the analogy that Steve often makes.
If a particular type of plane crashes, authorities will often suspend other planes of the same type from flying until they figure out what the hell went wrong. Even if there is nothing wrong with the other planes, they are still grounded until the cause of the accident is established so that there is less chance of it happening again.
Letting Tashfeen Malik into the country was a huge mistake. Trump should be able to argue it makes sense to suspend other people with the same distinguishing characteristic from entering the country until you find out what caused the mistake that allowed her in. Even if there is nothing wrong with most of the people you suspend from entering, they are still barred until the case of the mistake is established so that there is less chance of it happening again.
* It turned out in 1979 that DC-10s really were fundamentally flawed due to an unrealistic design philosophy, but there were 400 of them. So American Airlines took the liability hit for the 271 people killed on takeoff from O’Hare by letting be blamed on poor maintenance and the government ordered better maintenance so airlines wouldn’t have to write off their vast investment. They kept crashing, but not as often as they would have without all the inspections.
* We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman, 24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as “British Muslims”) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.
This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.
* Part of the success of the pro-immigration side is that in spite of not being monolithic, they have held together as a lobby. This is why their position is for “comprehensive” reform. If they don’t hang together they will hang separately. The high tech HB1 lobby, stoop labor / hotel maid lobby, family reunification (ethnics) lobby, white liberals really don’t have much in common with each other but they have figured out that if one group is thwarted, it is no longer unthinkable that the others can be stopped as well. Putting the kibosh on Muslim immigration will set off a chain reaction that will reform the rest of the system.
* Mr Trump is perfectly correct to do this, but of course the Powers-That-Be will take this as the opportunity they have been waiting for to destroy him.
If you simply read his statement, it becomes clear that there are good enough reasons for this measure. Also, if you remember that he is a negotiator, you will realize that he knows how to demand a lot up front, with the expectation that whatever less comes of it will still be better than what existed before.
It is unfortunate that the West and Americans have lost so much of their Chutzpah that such a statement throws them into a pussy-fit. This is proof of how far we have fallen.
Contrary to what people with the megaphone in the MSM will shout to you, there is nothing “unconstitutional” about restricting immigration and visas on specific bases. The Constitution protects the right of people inside our country to worship and speak as they please; it does not guarantee entry to anybody. Frankly, we don’t have to allow anybody in, and we can make any restrictions we want. It is our country, after all. Donald Trump, oddball that he is, is the only candidate free enough to bluntly show us this fact.
* Nice & pleasant is more important than IQ. Everyone here would rather live around dumb pleasant people than intelligent vicious people. Vicious low IQ people are bad too.
To rephrase: Why should nice, pleasant, Muslims be penalized?
They shouldn’t. Everyone here would rather live among more Ayaan Hirsi Alis and Razib Khans and less Bernie Sanders and Bill DeBlasios.
Screening between good and bad people is complicated. Something as simple as screening by religion is quite coarse and it will make many mistakes.
It’s baffling to me to hear citizens of Saudi Arabia criticize Trump as some great evil. They ruthlessly forbid other religions from their country and block members of their very own Arab Sunni Muslim demographic from immigrating. Those are orders of magnitude worse than anything Trump has proposed.
* Listening to NPR radio news on the way home tonight, based on the obloquy they are now heaping on Donald Trump, I got the distinct impression that they and all the other MSM have gone off the rails . The establishment is now so afraid of this man’s rational policy prescriptions that they fail to realize their increasingly shrill, irrational and off-topic attacks are drawing thoughtful voters to him.
I’m no longer nervous about expressing my support for Trump in places I wouldn’t have dared to a few weeks ago. No one can match my arguments in support of his policy statements and I regularly have persons who have heard me approach surreptitiously to say that although they are afraid to speak out they are grateful for more forthright persons like myself. I am beginning to have a glimmer of hope that a slim majority of the sane electorate in this country and in the UK and Europe are coming to their senses and may yet save themselves from the doom so carelessly crafted by establishments and elites who seem hellbent on destroying western civilization.
Posted inAmerica, Immigration, Islam|Comments Off on Trump Calls for Moratorium on Muslim Immigration “Until Our Country’s Representatives Can Figure Out What Is Going On”
With mathematically predictable precision, President Barack Hussein Obama declared that last Wednesday’s slaughter of 17 American attendees of a Christmas party by two Muslims in a community center in California, and the wounding of two-dozen others, was a mystery (“We don’t know the motives)—and that the U.S. needed stricter gun laws. It was a jihadist attack by devout Muslims against Americans, as it happens. It was an eminently jihadist act of murderous aggression by self-starting, home-grown Muslim terrorists.
Enough already of Obama and his ilk. The war against sudden jihad self-generated by Muslim immigrants and their offspring, threatening literally every American, is by now both real and present. It can and must be won, in spite of Obama and his ilk. From now on every Muslim is a legitimate suspect and every non-Muslim is a potential victim, with self-defense strategies understood
The first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy, Obama’s devious plaitudes notwithstanding. It is essential to discard the taboos and to discuss Islam, Middle Eastern immigration, and the Muslims in general without fear or guilt, or the shackles of mandated thinking. What I am about to state here is not different from what I have said at countless public platforms in the U.S. over the years, or advocates in these pages of Chronicles. This is a summary of many years of study.
The imperative is dictated by rational integrity no less than by the need for self-preservation. We have a moral and intellectual obligation “not to shirk the difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under a sort of taboo,” Bernard Lewis (age 99)—who knows Islam better than any prominent Westerner alive—warned three decades ago, “not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of course, competently . . . Because, make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future.”
Or, to be more precise, unfit to survive very far into the future. Since Lewis wrote those words it has become blatantly obvious that the main threat to Western security comes from the purveyors of “voluntary censorship,” with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who reject his diagnosis and demonize everyone else who agrees with him. Having absorbed postmodernist assumptions, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any serious faith except that in their own infallibility but loath to be “judgmental,” members of our own elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a pathology that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself. The result is a plethora of proposed “strategies” that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from jihadism as pretending that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are America’s “allies” in the fight against ISIS will help defeat the Islamic State.
Abroad, we are told, we need to trust Ankara and Riyadh, we need to spread our “values” in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, more draconian legal measures against “Islamophobia,” greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the Muslim communities that feel marginalized and stigmatized. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle is untenable and must be broken. Evidently it costs too many American (and French, English, Spanish . . . ) lives, and the problem will get worse. The magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.
1. Spying on Muslims is necessary, legal and justified—Let us start with the complex and emotionally charged issue of constitutional rights versus national security. In December 2005 it was disclosed that soon after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency “to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the U.S. to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.” The unwillingness of the mainstream media to disclose the exact identity of the NSA eavesdropping subjects was reminiscent of its refusal to disclose the religious identity of tens of thousands of rioters who wreaked havoc in dozens of French suburbs a decade ago. Glossing over the surveillance targets’ identity has implied that that a Muslim who has become a naturalized American citizen is so thoroughly and irrevocably “American,” that no hyphenated designation or qualifier is called for. This fits in with the liberal world view that rejects the notion that faith can be a prime motivating factor in human affairs, or that importing Muslim immigrants may be in any way disadvantageous for the host country’s security. Having reduced religion, politics and art to “narratives” and “metaphors” which merely reflect prejudices based on the distribution of power, the elite class did its usual thing, calling—most recently—the attackers in Paris last month “French” or “Belgian.”
Our awareness of the many failures of the Bush II presidency should not make us instinctively disinclined to see the legal justification for its conduct. The threat posed by jihad today is different in degree to that faced during the Cold War, but not in kind: it is an existential threat. 24/7 surveillance—at home and abroad—is the right and proper part of that response. The legal and constitutional dilemma, such as whether the U.S. should spy on jihadist-minded “Americans” at home is both false and unnecessary under the circumstances. Radical solutions are needed for radical challenges, and they do exist.
If and when all persons engaged in Islamic activism are excluded from America, there will be no need for such intrusive domestic surveillance. We don’t need any legislation to protect CAIR’s clients’ privacy, we need the law that will treat any naturalized citizen’s or resident alien’s known or suspected adherence to an Islamic world outlook as excludable – on political, rather than “religious” grounds.
2. Refuse/Rescind Citizenship to Islamic Activists—All Americans—real Americans, that is, and not those who falsely take the oath of citizenship but continue to preach jihad and Sharia—will be spared the worry of state intrusion if Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who preaches jihad, inequality of “infidels” and women, the establishment of the Shari’a law etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.
* I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the big influx of Slavic-looking people into the San Fernando Valley from Eastern Europe in this century are say, cousins of cousins of people who qualified as Soviet Jews under the favorably admission laws in the 1970-1990s. A half Jewish person moves from Russia to Valley Village and writes a letter to his not Jewish cousin about how great the weather is in SoCal, who follows who sends the same type of letter to his completely not Jewish cousin. Since Jews in the later years of the Soviet Union tended to be discriminated against for being too successful, there was plenty of intermarriage, so immigration programs for Soviet Jews wind up drawing in eventually lots of totally non-Jewish blond flatheads who maybe get work as bodyguards for their cousin’s cousin.
* Job discrimination against Jews in the Soviet Union got started around 1947 when Golda Meir came to visit and Stalin noticed how excited a lot of his Jewish underlings were about the formation of Israel.
Before that the Soviet Union had been aggressively anti-anti-Semitic from 1917 to the late 1930s. Then the Jewish foreign minister Litvinov got fired in 1939 so Molotov could make a deal with von Ribbentrop to launch WWII. But that stands out. For the next decade, the Soviets were less aggressive about rooting out anti-Semitism as in the first couple of decades, but did not have anti-Semitic policies. During the war, the Soviet government, which had largely been a Coalition of the Fringes (e.g., Stalin and Beria from Georgia, the Armenian Mikoyan, the Jewish Kaganovitch, etc., and before them Lenin and Trotsky) became more pro-Russian, so it attempted to push regular Russians into better jobs, which had negative consequences for Jews and other talented minorities.
Then policies to keep down the Jewish percentage in various jobs started to be erratically imposed after the formation of Israel, although they weren’t universal. But discrimination against Jews in the later Soviet Union was a real thing.
Posted inIslam|Comments Off on Defeating domestic jihad: a program of action
Updated, 10:42 p.m. | Donald J. Trump called on Monday for the United States to bar all Muslims from entering the country until the nation’s leaders can “figure out what is going on” after the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., an extraordinary escalation of rhetoric aimed at voters’ fears about members of the Islamic faith.
A prohibition of Muslims – an unprecedented proposal by a leading American presidential candidate, and an idea more typically associated with hate groups – reflects a progression of mistrust that is rooted in ideology as much as politics.
Mr. Trump, who in September declared “I love the Muslims,” turned sharply against them after the Paris terrorist attacks, calling for a database to track Muslims in America and repeating discredited rumors that thousands of Muslims celebrated in New Jersey on 9/11. His poll numbers rose largely as a result, until a setback in Iowa on Monday morning. Hours later Mr. Trump called for the ban, fitting his pattern of making stunning comments when his lead in the Republican presidential field appears in jeopardy.
Saying that “hatred” among many Muslims for Americans is “beyond comprehension,” Mr. Trump said in a statement that the United States needed to confront “where this hatred comes from and why.”
“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Mr. Trump said.
Asked what prompted his statement, Mr. Trump said, “death,” according to a spokeswoman.
Repudiation of Mr. Trump’s remarks was swift and severe among religious groups and politicians from both parties. Mr. Trump is “unhinged,” said one Republican rival, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, while another, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, called the ban “offensive and outlandish.” Hillary Clinton said the idea was “reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive.” Organizations representing Jews, Christians and those of other faiths quickly joined Muslims in denouncing Mr. Trump’s proposal.
“Rooting our nation’s immigration policy in religious bigotry and discrimination will not make America great again,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, executive director of Interfaith Alliance, putting a twist on Mr. Trump’s campaign slogan.
Mr. Trump made his remarks a day after President Obama delivered a national address from the Oval Office urging Americans not to turn against Muslims in the wake of the terrorist attacks.
Experts on immigration law and policy expressed shock at the proposal Monday afternoon.
“This is just so antithetical to the history of the United States,” said Nancy Morawetz, a professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law, who specializes in immigration. “It’s unbelievable to have a religious test for admission into the country.”
She added: “I cannot recall any historical precedent for denying immigration based on religion.”
I can: Soviet non-Jews.
In fact, I knew a Russian who was trying to fake being Jewish so she wouldn’t be kicked out of the country for not being Jewish.
Back in the 1990s, I knew one of the first of the great wave of Russian blondes to make it to the U.S. There was always a lot of drama revolving around whether or not the INS would kick her out of the country because her tourist visa had run out. Her boyfriend wasn’t interested in marrying her, so she was always on the lookout for a fake husband to scam the INS with. But when that angle petered out, she moved on to assembling genealogical records from back home to prove she was Jewish and therefore could get asylum in the U.S.
I’d never heard anything about her being even a little bit Jewish before, and it seemed like every economist in Cambridge, MA was on retainer to the Yeltsin government by that point, but apparently it was a serious plan: if she could document her theory of being Jewish by descent, she could, maybe, qualify for legal immigration to the U.S.. But if she were just a run of the mill Orthodox Christian, too bad, she was legally out of luck.
COMMENTS:
* Each year thousands of Chinese apply for asylum because China has persecuted some Christians.
In 2009, Chang asked immigration judge Barbara Nelson for U.S. asylum, claiming that he had been beaten and imprisoned in the Asian country for months after attending a church that wasn’t sanctioned by the Chinese government…….In order to test Chang’s religious claims, Judge Nelson asked the immigrant to explain the story of Paul to her in court…..
Thus our immigration judges have extensive experience judging the religious beliefs of immigrants to determine if they qualify for visas and green cards.
* Organizations representing Jews, Christians and those of other faiths quickly joined Muslims in denouncing Mr. Trump’s proposal.
All of these denominations make money from the refugee resettlement racket, so of course they oppose Trump. How many Americans are aware of the following facts from Refugee Resttlement Watch:
Refugee resettlement is profitable to the organizations involved in it.
They receive money from the federal government for each refugee they bring
over. They have almost no real responsibilities for these refugees. After
4 months the “sponsoring” organization is not even required to know where
the refugee lives.
There are 9 main major refugee resettlement organizations (Volags from
“Voluntary Agency”) with approximately 450 affiliated organizations
throughout the country; many are run by former refugees. Below are the 9
Volags that operate today:
US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),
Lutheran Immigrant Aid Society (LIRS),
International Rescue Committee (IRC),
World Relief Corporation,
Immigrant and Refugee Services of America (IRSA),
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS),
Church World Service (CWS),
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Service of the Episcopal Church of the USA,
Ethiopian Community Development Center (ECDC),
Below are some of the sources of income for Volags:
a. $1,850 per refugee (including children) from the State Department.
b. Up to $2,200 for each refugee by participating in a U.S. DHHS program
known as Matching Grant. To get the $2,200, the Volag need only show it
spent $200 and gave away $800 worth of donated clothes, furniture or cars.
c. The Volag pockets 25% of every transportation loan it collects from
refugees it “sponsors”.
d. All Volag expenses and overhead in the Washington, DC HQ are paid by
the U.S. government.
e. For their refugee programs, Volags collect money from all federal grant
programs – “Marriage Initiative”, “Faith-based”, “Ownership Society”,
etc., as well as from various state and local grants.
The program is so lucrative that in some towns the Catholic Church has
lessened support for traditional charity works to put more effort into
resettlement. It uses collection offerings to promote the refugee
resettlement program.
* They’re still running that Save Soviet Jews scam. On TV they have these infomercials that appeal to American Christians to donate to help poor ex-Soviet/Russian Jewish seniors.
* The 1795 immigration law restricted naturalization to free *white* persons. In 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Up until at least 1965 one law or another was on the books favoring this country’s historical ethnic majority – Northwest Europeans. So for 170 years we had “racist” immigration laws, while we’ve had supposedly “non-racist” immigration laws for at most 50 years (and that’s only if you ignore the law favoring Soviet Jews). Sounds to me like if there’s anything ‘antithetical to the history and values of this country’ it’s immigration laws that don’t take such matters into account.
* Its funny and ironic how jews played a large role in destroying Tsarist Russia and creating the Soviet Union and its secret police become the prime refugees of the Evil Empire that they created.
* We had the same situation in Germany. Chancellor Kohl wanted to open the borders for Russian-Germans, but – to forecome leftist and international critics – let in Russian Jews as well. Now, I never heard about ethnic Russians who faked German roots (a lot of them came anyway as family members), but it was well known that a lot of Russians had to fake Jewish roots in order to get accepted in Germany. (Same story in Israel, before the Israelis began to use DNA tests.)
* Europe, and the US, effectively discriminate against Syrian Christians. This is due to the fact that Christians are endangered even in German refugee camps. It is extremely dangerous for Christians to be in Syrian refugee camps in Syria. The UN picks their resettlement refugees from the Christian-free refugee camps.
* When I was growing up in NYC, there were certain neighborhoods where Yiddish was spoken quite widely (I have quite fond memories of hearing guttural utterances while going for runs at night). When I came back from college, Yiddish began to disappear and suddenly there were all these “Jewish Refuseniks” who spoke only Russian, never went to synagogues, and never observed any Jewish holidays or rituals. There was also a sudden spike in Russian organized crime (of course, there has been always a strong Jewish presence within the broad umbrella of “Russian organized crime”).
* The preferential treatment of Soviet Jews via immigration to the United States was real. I’ve met a number of them. Indeed, one of them married my nephew. Surprisingly, most I’ve met ended up in banking, which fits the stereotype of Jews … but I do not understand the connection. They came from the Soviet Union, which was not a capitalist paradise nor did it have a financialized economy at the time.
One of the immigrants told me a story about the special privileges that Jews had in the Soviet Union on the eve of the exodus, such as the right to own upscale apartments in Moscow and free tickets to the Bolshoi Ballet. Of interest, the women and her husband were able to flee the Soviet Union with enough cash to buy an upscale apartment in New York city. [?] Were people that wealthy in the Soviet Union at the time, was there that much cash floating around, and how did they get it out of the country?
I try to keep up on these things but have not ran into any descriptions of Jews being persecuted in this time frame. Indeed, Jews were plentiful in the higher ranks of the nomenklatura. Did they see the handwriting on the wall? Were they like “rats” fleeing a sinking ship? Wikipedia seems to think so: “The emigration that took place from 1989 to 1993 is described as a “panic migration”, due to the socio-economic crisis in the Soviet states, rather than a migration of “born-again” Jews.”
As I recall, Israel campaigned to stop the preferential treatment of Soviet Jews immigrating to the United States because the majority of the Soviet Jews fleeing the Soviet Union were choosing the United States rather than Israel. Israel used its American lobby to shut down the Jewish spigot to America under the belief that, with the United States off the table, the Jews would have no choice but to immigrate to Israel. It worked. The presence of Russian immigrants in Israel is substantial enough to support Russian-language newspapers, radio, and TV channels. Wikipedia has the statistics, but they belie the influence of Russian immigrants on Israel proper, including support for the Likud party. I’ve read of Russian being described as the “second language” of Israel after Hebrew (Arabic speakers, of course, are ignored).
The scale of Jews fleeing the Soviet Union was massive. I read an article that pre-immigration, about 5% of the Soviet population was Jewish. After the exodus, it is now “decimal dust”.
* I don’t know if Team Trump is this clever, but the way to answer the howling and moaning from the ruling class on this is to “compromise” and say, “You’re right, A religious test is impractical. Instead, we should halt all immigration as a security matter. Until the economy is booming and the international terrorism issue is under control, we must halt all immigration.”
That would be checkmate.
* It wasn’t until I was 17-years old, and working at a business owned by Middle Eastern Muslims, that I knew there was such a thing as Holocaust jokes and talk of genocide against an ethnic group while being all buddy, buddy with customers of that same group. All I can say to the Jews is “Good luck,” when the last vestiges of annoying Christian culture is snuffed out. Not being admitted to country clubs and Skull and Bones will be the good old days. Jews in Europe will find this out in about 20 years, when demographics changes reach saturation point.
* In LORD OF WAR Nicolas Cage and his Ukrainian family pretend to be jews to stay in America.
* Trump got where he is by being a good negotiator, and good negotiators always ask for more than they want. If I will settle for $5, I will demand $10 and then let you negotiate me down. Heck, I might even get $7 or $8.
The MSM is truly a bunch of morons to fall for something so transparent. Haven’t they ever haggled over the price of a car? Oh, wait. I forgot. They lease their Beemers.
* Trump’s announcement is classic “Art of the Deal,” right? Suggest an objective that people will predictably complain is outrageous, then offer a compromise position that represents the goal you originally wanted to achieve.
By forcing his opponents on the Left and Right to trot out their usual “fairness” and “impartiality” arguments, he’s opened the door to using those very arguments to support a general immigration moratorium. (At least, that would be the strategic vision–which I think is well within Trump’s imagination as a negotiator.)
In the meantime, he’s inspired a lot of people who would otherwise have never thought about the issue to wonder: “Why exactly CAN’T we have a moratorium on immigration?”
And as Trump’s opponents fall all over themselves admitting (rightly or wrongly): “Sure, we’ve restricted immigration in the past–for this and that reason; but not on the basis of religion”–they are merely providing evidence that America HAS and CAN restrict immigration, period.
If this is indeed what he’s doing, Trump is masterfully playing the entire political-media class for the predictable fools they are. I guess time will tell.
* This is all very ironic since Russian gentiles were less dangerous to America than Jewish-Americans.
For a long time, many American Jews were radical leftist.
And even after the majority of Jews turned against the USSR for its ‘anti-Jewish’ policies, Jews from Russia were more likely to partake in radical politics in America. Not necessarily in commie stuff but in homo stuff, anti-white stuff, anti-Christian stuff, and etc. Even after many Jews dropped radical leftism or Marxism, their anti-white and anti-Christian animus remained.
I think Neocons have done more damage to the GOP and American Conservatism, and many of them are of Eastern European background.
Btw, Trump went too far with this. He should have called for more strict screening for Muslims. That would be acceptable to most Americans. Give Muslim immigration applicants more attention. But the idea of banning ALL MUSLIMS goes too far.
Also, this Muslim terror problem is limited to certain nations. Those nations should be targeted. I mean how many Indonesian Muslim terrorists have there been in America? How many Asian-Indian-Muslim terrorist attacks have there been in America? I know some Paki-Americans, and they are more red-white-and-blue than I am and always had arguments with Jews in high school about politics.
I say the more sensible measure is give special attention to Muslim applicants, especially from nations like Saudi Arabia, our so-called ally. (Interesting that Iranian-Americans have not been at the forefront of terror attacks in US or EU.)
* I see the media is celebrating Joe Scarborough cutting to a commercial to cut off Trump.
The meta message: Americans and indigenous Europeans not permitted under any circumstance to regain control of their borders.
Public shaming, DOJ threats, name calling, self-censorship — all tools must be utilized. The larger project is too important; displacement must continue apace.
* Because up until now no one with the influence of a Donald Trump has come out and said what many believe, but are afraid to say. If Trump can make such a policy suggestion and survive, it sends a signal to others. And that is the real threat. We know Trump’s policy would never be implement, at least in regards to muslim citizens. But just allowing such free discourse to take place without penalty serves to push back the PC censorship and gives countless others the moral courage to do the same.
Trump might have been a huge annoyance up until yesterday. But now he is an absolute threat to their entire worldview.
* It’s now 5.22 in England, and the first 22 minutes of the hour-long Radio Four news have been almost entirely devoted to Donald Trump. Even David Cameron has said it’s a bad idea, though that’s par for the course. Guardian’s having conniptions.
* Published on Dec 8, 2015: Donald Trump gets cut off by ‘Morning Joe’ host Joe Scarborough Joe Scarborough Disrespects Trump Donald Trump gets cut off by ‘Morning Joe’ host Joe Scarborough Joe Scarborough Disrespects Trump:
* How in the world are the genius professors cited by the NYT declaring this unconstitutional? Sure we can’t ban people from practicing a religion if already here but that is not what Trump proposed. Are these people claiming the constitution applies to all people on earth before they even set foot anywhere near the US?
* If religious group XYZ is aggrieved and warrants asylum, they may get special immigration options that are denied to other religious groups.
The entire premise of asylum+refugee programs is granting privileged immigration status to a particular aggrieved demographic and denying those benefits to others not in the aggrieved demographic.
* When I worked once in a prison, it was a common observation that once testosterone levels fell off in the late thirties, criminals were much less likely to reoffend, and by the time they got into their fifties they were nearly always harmless.
* In the extremely PC climate era we live in today which consists of micro aggression, White privilege, and safe spaces, I wonder if Vince McMahon would still have the balls to put another evil Arab Muslim character on WWE television.
I remember back in the days he would have MENA characters like The Sultan, Muhammad Hassan, The Iron Sheik, Col. Mustafa, Gen. Adnan, and Sheik Abdul Bashir. He would give them dark sinister Middle Eastern music that would be fit for the villain Jafar from Aladdin.
* Back in the 1990s there was “Operation Exodus”
The first ex-Soviet Jews showed up around 1990 in the upscale liberal city where I was living and working at the time. Through civic involvement circles I had casual exposure to these “refugees” as well as the professional helpers who enabled their importation and occupation.
(The access class there was quite small and very Jewish, with roots in NYC, LA, and Chicago mostly. Like Bernie Sanders, they moved to white rural areas, suburbo-rural small towns, or university/capital cities as soon as they graduated from NYU, Columbia, U of Chicago, UCLA, Stanford, etc.)
It and a few other experiences left me with the sense that Operation Exodus was a Holocaust (TM) Industry-referenced immigration scheme designed to a) bolster Jewish numbers in target liberal cities (NY, Chicago, LA), as Jewish birth and marriage rates were declining and outmarriage increasing, and to b) force “WASPs” to pay for everything after the initial social services investment by the Jewish “social” agencies, which guilted donations out of their younger set.
* I think the real issue with refugees now is that everyone has lost the ability to articulate why anyone should be excluded from or denied anything. Both common Americans and elites–any kind of crisis either of private or public nature elicits only a very narrow range of responses consisting of giving people things or making their lives easier. There are a few exceptions such as alcoholism, but basically this is why Caplan favors open borders and Americans are silent.
Ilana Mercer tweets: “Donald J. Trump must secure his person over and above his state-bought-and-paid-for security detail. Mr. Trump is unseating Rome-On-The-Potomac.”
Donald Trump’s online critics have proposed an alternative to his anti-terrorism policies: Assassinate him instead.
Secret Service agents assigned to protect Trump since Nov. 11 may be working overtime in the wake of his comments on halting Muslim immigration into the U.S. A slew of death threats against the billionaire were tweeted after a campaign stop in South Carolina on Monday.
“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine,” Trump said in a statement released Tuesday. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”
Trump’s extreme critics saw no irony between his statements on Islamic radicals and their calls for his assassination.
“Can we kill Trump?” asked a woman named Tijani.
“Now he wants to impede Muslims from entering the U.S.? Someone really needs to kill trump ASAP,” wrote a user identified as Aldo.
“ISIS needs to kill Trump,” wrote a woman named Jodie.
An extensive list of the calls to violence were compiled by Infowars on Tuesday.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus both distanced the Republican Party from Trump on Tuesday.
“We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism but not at the expense of our American values,” Priebus told the Washington Examiner.
“This is not conservatism. What was proposed [by Trump] is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for,” Ryan said during a press conference with House Republicans.
The billionaire defended his position during an appearance on CNN Tuesday morning, telling host Chris Cuomo that a rejection of his plan is tantamount to putting “blinders” on.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on ‘Kill Trump’: Enraged left calls for assassination
Steve Sailer writes: We are confidently told that religious tests have never been used in determining who gets into America and therefore America must take in any Muslim not currently wearing a suicide bomb vest. Or something.
But a reader points out the U.S. State Department’s Religious Minorities refugee program under the Lautenberg Amendment.
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Washington, DC
January 9, 2013
Background
Since 1975, the U.S. has resettled over 900,000 refugees from Europe and Central Asia. Approximately two-thirds of this number came from the countries of the former Soviet Union, and the balance from other parts of Europe. Since 1989, the U.S. has admitted more than 440,000 refugees processed according to standards of the Lautenberg Amendment, which applies to members of specified religious minorities (Jews, Evangelicals, and certain members of the Ukrainian Catholic or Ukrainian Orthodox Churches) from the countries of the former Soviet Union. In FY 2012, the U.S. admitted 1,129 refugees from 11 countries in Europe and Central Asia, including those under the Lautenberg Amendment in-country processing program.
The reader writes:
This is the program most akin to what should be done for Syrian “refugees,” if there are any. The Iranian Religious Minorities Program allowed only those who were just that, religious minorities (non-Muslims) to come to the US through the program. Most of those who benefited were Armenian Christians, Assyrian/Chaldean Christian, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahais. … and only … two or three actual Persian Moslems who took advantage of it, and they were married to minorities.
Posted inImmigration|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: State Department Already Has Religious Tests for Refugees
you’re so vain you probably think the trumpening reads you you’re so vain i’ll bet you think the trump has you bookmarked don’t you don’t you…..
I’m glad that Trump and his team are taking pointers from this ‘umble retreat nestled deep in the Ardenne forests. Our knowledge and talents are available to aid your journey to the White House, Donald.
How much has the dissident-right helped Trump shift the Overton Window all the way to “induce lactating of shitlib manboobs”?
This is incredible. After 9/11 (3000 people dead), visas are issued to the dead terrorists.
After San Bernardino (14 people dead), Trump calls for a Muslim immigration shut down.
A few fearless voices will ring out like a… trumpening… from the din of lies. Trump understands the importance of Game to world-changing politics as well as to women. Game 101: Trump is proving the way to defeat the leftoid hivemind is to go on the offense, give no quarter, and make no apology.
Trump giving a speech just said re: Bernardino: “His wife radicalized him, maybe he couldn’t get women? Who knows?” Is Trump reading Heartiste? Saw this on CNN just now. Trump also said, If people in Paris/Bernardino had guns, things would have been different.
Ok, the truth is, I can neither confirm nor deny if the future 45th President of the United States Donald M to the Fer Trump is a CH reader. Our guest list is a secret guarded on threat of punishment to sit strapped in a chair listening to Jeb Bush and John Kasich natter about the true meaning of conservatism (guacamole recipes and endless streams of cheap ingrate labor).
Related: A useful rundown of what happens to a society as its Muslim population grows. Diversity™ always creates headaches and rips apart social cohesion, but Muslim Diversity™ is a special breed of vibrancy; acting like an accelerant on the process of societal disintegration in a linear relationship with the population share of Muslims.
Maybe it has been in the hands of women for too long… but not anymore. There’s a testicular spectre emerging from the century-old swamp of equalist orthodoxy, and the women are doing what they always do when ZERO FUCKS GIVEN men take the lead: they fall in line (and swoon while doing it).
In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said Sunday that American aid toward refugees should be geared toward Christians who are fleeing persecution in Syria, as opposed to those who are Muslim.
“I think we need to do thorough screening and take in a limited number,” Bush said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “There are a lot of Christians in Syria that have no place now. They’ll be either executed or imprisoned, either by Assad or by ISIS. We should focus our efforts as it relates to the refugees for the Christians that are being slaughtered.”
The White House’s plan to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees has come under attack from Republican presidential candidates in the wake of Friday’s terror attack in Paris, which claimed at least 129 lives and wounded at least 350. Officials say one of the attackers held a Syrian passport and appears to have come through Greece among the throngs of refugees, increasing fears that ISIS is using the crisis as a way to infiltrate Europe.
Bush said that the U.S. should use a careful screening process to ensure refugees are in fact Christian, saying “we need to be obviously very, very cautious.”
Bush isn’t the only GOP candidate to say U.S. compassion as it relates to the refugee crisis should focus on Christians. “President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s idea that we should bring tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees to America — it is nothing less than lunacy,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in an interview with Fox News on Saturday.
“Now on the other hand,” Cruz added, “Christians who are being targeted, for genocide, for persecution, Christians who are being beheaded or crucified, we should be providing safe haven to them.”
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Mickey Kaus: Jeb’s take-only-Christians plan’s totally different from Trump’s don’t-take-Muslims plan because….
Probably not. The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine. The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections. While the Court has not ruled on religious discrimination, it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from the general rule.
There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.
The plenary power doctrine is universally loathed by scholars and some have argued that it is effectively a dead letter. But any honest answer to a journalist’s question about whether Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration is unconstitutional should start with the plenary powers doctrine, and observe that it would be an uphill battle to persuade the Supreme Court to abandon a century of precedent. Unfortunately, that is not what scholars–who certainly know better–are telling journalists. They are likely being abetted by journalists and headline writers who don’t like the idea that Trump’s ban would be lawful. Not everything that is stupid or offensive is unconstitutional.
(N.B.: blocking American Muslims overseas from entering the country would certainly be unconstitutional, and blocking immigration by Muslims would raise complicated international-law questions.)
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on IS AN IMMIGRATION BAN ON MUSLIMS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
